Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Lord Ahmed
35 Answers
12 WEEKS jail for killing someone while sending and receiving texts while driving on the M1. You couldn't make it up!!!!! Open Prison for 6 weeks,no doubt.!!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Everhelpful. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You beat me to it Everhelpful, yes absolutely disgusting a law for one and a law for others in this country.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?se archPhrase=jailed+for+dangerous+driving
Why has this man been given such a lenient sentence. compared with all those others.
Even a dinner lady got 6 months for drink driving and she didn't kill anyone.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?se archPhrase=jailed+for+dangerous+driving
Why has this man been given such a lenient sentence. compared with all those others.
Even a dinner lady got 6 months for drink driving and she didn't kill anyone.
The link cited says that the judge made clear that the text messaging was not connected weith the fatal accident. Note that Ahmed wasn't charged or convicted of causing death by dangerous or careless driving (and couldn't have been, from what the judge said) Good old Daily Mail! So why the headline 'jailed over death crash'?
What was wrong with the Mail having this as 'Middle class man, just like one of us, the Daily Mail readers, is jailed for text-messaging when driving.' Or would that strike too close to home and upset the readers ?
Any info about this dinner lady referred to above by AOG, who got 6 months? It sounds, from the sentence, as though she is an alcoholic with a bad record of drink-drive, who was paralytic when stopped.
What was wrong with the Mail having this as 'Middle class man, just like one of us, the Daily Mail readers, is jailed for text-messaging when driving.' Or would that strike too close to home and upset the readers ?
Any info about this dinner lady referred to above by AOG, who got 6 months? It sounds, from the sentence, as though she is an alcoholic with a bad record of drink-drive, who was paralytic when stopped.
Ah,I see the 'dinner lady' is further down the same link ! Doesn't say what her previous convictions were,if any,but that may not matter in this case.She was 6 times the limit when found after driving 7 miles, apparently after work, and being noted by concerned staff as having alcohol on her breath when she'd arrived at work.Other drivers were involved in this, frightened at her driving.
She has to be an alcoholic. Six times the limit is commonly fatal, would be to any non-alcoholic, who'd have passed out long before reaching anything that level. That level is close to record breaking.So she's a woman who must surely be over the limit every time she drives a car !
No wonder she got 6 months.
She has to be an alcoholic. Six times the limit is commonly fatal, would be to any non-alcoholic, who'd have passed out long before reaching anything that level. That level is close to record breaking.So she's a woman who must surely be over the limit every time she drives a car !
No wonder she got 6 months.
She still did not kill anyone.
Further to your other incorrect post.
<i.Note that Ahmed wasn't charged or convicted of causing death by dangerous or careless driving (and couldn't have been, from what the judge said)
What the judge said:
He concluded: "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."
Charged and convicted of dangerous driving in my book, hence the Daily Mail's 'jailed over death crash'?
Good old Daily Mail, Jailed!!! YES, death crash!!!! YES again.
Further to your other incorrect post.
<i.Note that Ahmed wasn't charged or convicted of causing death by dangerous or careless driving (and couldn't have been, from what the judge said)
What the judge said:
He concluded: "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."
Charged and convicted of dangerous driving in my book, hence the Daily Mail's 'jailed over death crash'?
Good old Daily Mail, Jailed!!! YES, death crash!!!! YES again.
Main problem is that the Law is an absolute ass!
Too often, so-called "mitigating circumstances" i.e. reasons for NOT giving the offender exactly what they deserve, are used to sway the magistrates/judge/jury etc etc, and this ploy usually works.
If you've never gone to watch a Court case I'd strongly advise you to go to one - as long as you have a sense of humour!
The performance of some defence solicitors is Oscar winning to say the least! I always thought that they were supposed to actually believe in their clients' innocence before agreeing to defend them - how naive I used to be! If most of them DO think that, then they are either totally gullible or extremely skilful actors, or both!
I once saw a Judge direct a jury to take no more notice of the Police evidence than that of other prosecution witnesses! It just so happened that THOSE witnesses had all been intoxicated at the scene of the offence whereas the Police attending it, who saw as much as those witnesses, obviously were sober! As a result, the jury acquitted a defendant of a serious assault who was clearly
banged to rights!
Plus, there is such inconsistency in sentencing which I believe is the one of the reasons why Joe Public loses faith in "The System".
Too often, so-called "mitigating circumstances" i.e. reasons for NOT giving the offender exactly what they deserve, are used to sway the magistrates/judge/jury etc etc, and this ploy usually works.
If you've never gone to watch a Court case I'd strongly advise you to go to one - as long as you have a sense of humour!
The performance of some defence solicitors is Oscar winning to say the least! I always thought that they were supposed to actually believe in their clients' innocence before agreeing to defend them - how naive I used to be! If most of them DO think that, then they are either totally gullible or extremely skilful actors, or both!
I once saw a Judge direct a jury to take no more notice of the Police evidence than that of other prosecution witnesses! It just so happened that THOSE witnesses had all been intoxicated at the scene of the offence whereas the Police attending it, who saw as much as those witnesses, obviously were sober! As a result, the jury acquitted a defendant of a serious assault who was clearly
banged to rights!
Plus, there is such inconsistency in sentencing which I believe is the one of the reasons why Joe Public loses faith in "The System".
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Texting-driver-in- fatal-crash.4938845.jp
This is a more accurate comparison - someone who was texting (as opposed to speeding or drink driving).
She was given 21 months.
I agree 100% - this is far too lenient (though he would never have been given the 5 year maximum sentence since he pleaded guilty)
This is a more accurate comparison - someone who was texting (as opposed to speeding or drink driving).
She was given 21 months.
I agree 100% - this is far too lenient (though he would never have been given the 5 year maximum sentence since he pleaded guilty)
Paraffin, what you describe the judge saying sounds like the standard direction which every judge is to required to give viz that all witnesses, including the defendant, are to be treated equally. That is required lest the jury think the prosecution witnesses (including the police) are more credible or of more weight simply because the prosecution calls them. A direction that the police are no different from any other witnesses fits in with that direction.
Furthermore the judge must emphasize that his opinion of the credibility or quality of any witness , like all questions of fact, are for the jury alone and the jury is not to be swayed by any opinion that the judge appears to them to be expressing on such questions.
What the jury makes of the evidence of the witnesses and what the jury finds proved beyond a reasonable doubt (or not) is a matter for them
Some judges used to put the equality point pithily: " All witnesses start equal when they enter the witness box but may not be equal when they leave it !"
Furthermore the judge must emphasize that his opinion of the credibility or quality of any witness , like all questions of fact, are for the jury alone and the jury is not to be swayed by any opinion that the judge appears to them to be expressing on such questions.
What the jury makes of the evidence of the witnesses and what the jury finds proved beyond a reasonable doubt (or not) is a matter for them
Some judges used to put the equality point pithily: " All witnesses start equal when they enter the witness box but may not be equal when they leave it !"
Oneyedvic, did you notice that the woman in your link was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving whereas Ahmed was not (and evidently could not have been, as it was not connected to a fatal accident )? Since it was her texting that was key to causing the death, how is her case " a more accurate comparison"? That 'causing death ' explains her sentence.
I just saw this on the news (and what I say in the rest of this post is based on the BBC news report - I have not seen the case transcript). He had ceased texting 3 minutes before the accident. however, the "prolonged" texting he had done beforehand (amounting to around 16 minutes) at a speed of around 60 mph is what he was jailed for. And rightly so. The punishment in this case fits the crime. he has deliberately flouted driving laws and for this he should pay the price. However, he was NOT convicted of killing someone whilst sending and receiving texts. The accident occured when the driver of the other car who had already been involved in an accident was straddling two lanes of a dark motorway.
I nearly hit a car that had spun on an A road one night - it was pitch black, the car was black, it had no lights on and I missed it only with inches to spare and by putting my own car on the verge. A split second and that could have been me. Not sure I would have felt a jail sentence to be reasonable in those circumstances - irrespective of what I may or may not have been doing 3 minutes earlier.
I nearly hit a car that had spun on an A road one night - it was pitch black, the car was black, it had no lights on and I missed it only with inches to spare and by putting my own car on the verge. A split second and that could have been me. Not sure I would have felt a jail sentence to be reasonable in those circumstances - irrespective of what I may or may not have been doing 3 minutes earlier.
The sentence that Lord Ahmed received is quite pitiful. He could have received up to 2 years. He failed to see a stationary car in the outside lane of the M1 motorway! As a result of his blatant lack of attention whilst driving, he has killed a person. I'm certain he didn't mean to do it but so what? The fact remains that someone is dead due to Ahmed's complete inability to either concentrate or manoeuvre his car correctly.
In addition to his extremely lenient sentence I honestly think that any person convicted of a serious criminal offence � especially an offence serious enough to warrant a prison sentence � should not be involved in law making process. It is completely hypocritical. To me, it is like a police officer going to prison for say, a serious assault, and on release from prison, going straight back to his job as a police officer.
Lord Ahmed should never be allowed to enter the House of Lords again. He should be expelled immediately along with the likes of Lord Archer, Lord Black, etc.
How many 'ordinary' people would be allowed to keep their job if they were convicted of a serious criminal offence? Not many. Hardly any in fact.
I know it's a clich� but it really does seem that there's one rule for the ruling 'elite' and quite another rule for the rest of us.
In addition to his extremely lenient sentence I honestly think that any person convicted of a serious criminal offence � especially an offence serious enough to warrant a prison sentence � should not be involved in law making process. It is completely hypocritical. To me, it is like a police officer going to prison for say, a serious assault, and on release from prison, going straight back to his job as a police officer.
Lord Ahmed should never be allowed to enter the House of Lords again. He should be expelled immediately along with the likes of Lord Archer, Lord Black, etc.
How many 'ordinary' people would be allowed to keep their job if they were convicted of a serious criminal offence? Not many. Hardly any in fact.
I know it's a clich� but it really does seem that there's one rule for the ruling 'elite' and quite another rule for the rest of us.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Do You All Know About "Amer Craft...
Travel3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Food & Drink25 mins ago
