Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Lord Ahmed leaves prison - after 16 days...

BillieTheBotBillieTheBot Posts: 8,721 Bot
in Politics & Debate
Yes, it is he who allegedly threatened to amass 10,000 Muslims in order to stop Geert Wilders from entering the country. In the end, Jackboot Jacqui stopped it herself.

Just over a fortnight ago, Labour peer Lord Ahmed was jailed for 12 weeks. Why? Because, on Christmas Day 2007, he was driving on the M1 sending and receiving texts. Shortly after, he was involved in a smash where Martyn Gombar was killed. The 12-week sentence was absolutely pitiful in itself. And now we discover this...

I've been convinced for a while that something odd was going on here. I have noticed several bloggers writing about "Lard Ahmed of Tub" and getting replies in their comments from very high up. Libertarian blogger Anna Raccoon wrote about it and got a reply from the Solicitor General, for god's sake. It's nice to see the country is so free of crime and strife that Veira Bard can sit in her office browsing the Internet, but very worrying for the rest of us. (although the main priority for Scottish MP and grade A cunt Tom Harris is to distance his party from Ahmed, as you'll see here) Something sure as hell doesn't seem right.

Either way, this is a disgrace. Unintentionally or not, Lord Ahmed ended up killing an innocent man on that day. He has not expressed any remorse for this, let alone apologised. Indeed, his solicitor had the sheer cheek to claim in court that he was being used as a "scapegoat". What a fucking cheek. He won't even lose his seat in the House of Lords over this - once you are a Lord, you can't be forced out, you can't even resign. And the Court of Appeal decides to free him? What a sick joke.

Over to you...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you would expect someone who committed negligent homicide would be in jail at least a couple more days...:yeees:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I was not at the scene of the crime so I do not know what happened.

    Presumably with the benefit of what evidence was available, Lady Justice Hallett said there was "little or nothing" Lord Ahmed could have done to avoid the collision.

    She said he had never been accused of, or admitted, causing death by dangerous driving.

    So the alleged crime in this case had nothing to do with the death.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If someone's going to be jailed, then they should have to serve at least a significant portion of the term. Having said that, it was a harsh sentence in the first place that had absolutely nothing to do with a man dying. Or if not harsh, certainly not in line with the punishment people will generally recieve for such a crime.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So it's one rule for the likes of this chap and another for the rest of us citizens.

    God the authorities aren't half tough on dangerous drivers eh....?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually it's not as scandalous as one would first think. If I understood it correctly it was established that Lord Ahmed finished texting and put his phone away some 2 miles before the collision.

    Therefore it is wrong to suggest that he caused a death by dangerous driving because he was texting.

    So the question left is, was he guilty of wrongdoing when he crashed into the broken down car? Or was simply jailed for texting beforehand? Since the texting actually had no bearing in the accident, I should think it is right he's been let out.

    Perhaps one could agree that his appeal might have been given priority for who he is, and on that respect you could claim 'one rule for them and another for us'. But the fact appears to be that he did not cause death by dangerous driving, but that he's received a custodial sentence for the offence of texting while driving on a motorway. Seeing as most people don't get custodial sentences for that, I'd say there is no question of his sentencing being influenced by who he is.
  • Options
    SkiveSkive Posts: 15,286 Skive's The Limit
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Actually it's not as scandalous as one would first think. If I understood it correctly it was established that Lord Ahmed finished texting and put his phone away some 2 miles before the collision.

    Therefore it is wrong to suggest that he caused a death by dangerous driving because he was texting.

    So the question left is, was he guilty of wrongdoing when he crashed into the broken down car? Or was simply jailed for texting beforehand? Since the texting actually had no bearing in the accident, I should think it is right he's been let out.

    Perhaps one could agree that his appeal might have been given priority for who he is, and on that respect you could claim 'one rule for them and another for us'. But the fact appears to be that he did not cause death by dangerous driving, but that he's received a custodial sentence for the offence of texting while driving on a motorway. Seeing as most people don't get custodial sentences for that, I'd say there is no question of his sentencing being influenced by who he is.

    Exactly.

    The Judge said that there was no evidence at all that his use of the phone whilst driving caused the accident and stated that he was not responsible for the death of the victim.

    Therefore he should only have been punished for the crime of using your phone whilst driving - the normal punishment being 60 quid and 3 penalty points.
    Weekender Offender 
Sign In or Register to comment.