Texting peer freed after appeal

  carver 07:08 13 Mar 2009

Well he didn't spend much time in jail click here

The community needs him.

I suppose it didn't need the people he killed.

  Quickbeam 07:17 13 Mar 2009

A lot of jailed traffic offenders will have a family that needs them, but they stay inside...

Abuse of status?

  Quickbeam 07:36 13 Mar 2009

"So, calling him a killer is a very wrong thing to do."

I would disagree, societies views on motoring deaths caused by inattention or drink/drugs has changed greatly over the years.

There is a contradiction in the two quotations. He was proved to have been texting immediately prior to to crash. At the time of the original trial reporting, that was offered as evidence as to why he didn't see the vehicle and as he admitted dangerous driving, that seems to be the reason for his conviction.

  carver 07:36 13 Mar 2009

So when he had been jailed at Sheffield Crown Court after admitting dangerous driving, he didn't really say that at his trial.

And I suppose he didn't kill any body by hitting their car.

I'm so glad you are here to put us right, suppose it was just an act of god that he died at the moment this Peers car hit his car.

  ened 07:37 13 Mar 2009

"So, calling him a killer is a very wrong thing to do"

Of course he killed them - how ridiculous to say he didn't.

How do think they came to die?

Where the guilt lies is another matter but I would say this: only ever drive as fast as you can see to stop!

As obvious as it sounds: A motto which has served me well in over 35 years of driving.

  ened 07:39 13 Mar 2009

I really must learn to type faster!

  carver 08:35 13 Mar 2009

You'd better tell these people then as your public duty to tell them they have it all wrong

Sentencing Lord Ahmed, the judge said: "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."

Or here click here

Or these people click here

Or these people click here

So all these articles abut his dangerous driving are a complete fabrication, how odd.

I nearly forgot, wasn't he one of the people who helped pass this law when it went through the Lords, or doesn't it apply to them, just the general public..

  Quickbeam 08:52 13 Mar 2009

That link relating to his release is crammed with damning quotes relating to his inattentive driving, my comment was given on what was reported at the time in our local press.

"Lord Ahmed, 51, had been involved in a fatal crash minutes after sending the messages on Christmas Day 2007."
"The peer had been jailed at Sheffield Crown Court after admitting dangerous driving."
"the sentencing judge had had "no option but to impose a custodial sentence""
"The peer sent and received a series of five text messages while driving in the dark along a 17-mile stretch of the motorway."
"Lord Ahmed's use of the mobile phone, in the dark on a motorway, had "put people's lives at risk and for no good reason"."

I think it's obvious that he wasn't giving his required full attention to driving at all. Had he been, he should have seen an obstacle and had time to assess that he was bearing down on it in time to make a safe evasive course.

I get the impression he's got a legal team to nitpick the evidence in his favour. hence my original comment "Abuse of status?".

  bremner 08:55 13 Mar 2009

Lord Ahmed pleaded guilty to dangerous driving by using his mobile phone for a prolonged period.

His conviction was in no way connected to the subsequent accident that resulted in the death of a man who had crashed into the central barrier as a result of drinking and driving. His car was stationary in the outside lane. He had made his way to the hard shoulder but ran back to the car to get a mobile phone.

The car in front of Ahmed swerved and clipped the car, Ahmed was unable to manoeuvre and hit the car.

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

There was clearly no evidence of causing death by careless or dangerous driving by Ahmed or he would have been charged and tried for those offences.

Ahmed was involved in a fatal accident, labeling him a killer is excessive and unnecessary.

  ened 08:58 13 Mar 2009

He drove into a car in lane three of a motor way and killed somebody.

Those are facts and I know that, if I had done that, my conscience would be reminding me of it for the rest of my life.

As far as I am concerned he was driving dangerously prior to the accident and, had he been contentrating, he may very well have been able to stop when he realised the lane was blocked.

Drive as fast as you can see!

  Monoux 09:12 13 Mar 2009

If he was sentenced on Feb 25 for 12 weeks = 84 days why was he due for release on March 20th = 24 days anyway, that's not even half his sentence.

No wonder many people think the law is an ass and there is little deterent any more.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Alienware 17 R4 2017 review

Is this the future of VR and AR?

Best iPad buying guide 2017

Comment regarder le Bureau des L├ęgendes en ligne ?