Lord Ahmed certainly has an army of supporters. Following my piece this morning on my blog that this mendacious government couldn’t possibly be thinking of reviewing his sentence, the Solicitor-General has kindly found time in her busy work load of asking the Court of Appeal to review the sentence of Phillipa Curtis, jailed for 21 months after being found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving whilst texting, to drop into my humble blog and jump to Lord Ahmed’s defence.
-
Vera Baird 03.04.09 at 8:03 pm
- the judge made clear, contrary to what you say, the texting had stopped several miles before the crash and played no part in the death. Hence he was not charged with causing death while dangerous driving like ms Curtis but with dangerous driving only. Nobody should text while driving.
- Is she trying to say that he wasn’t distracted by his texting and was paying full attention when he killed young Mr Gombar. I had charitably assumed that he was distracted by his texting.
- Perhaps the Solicitor-General dropping into blogs to reiterate past defences for ordinary folk is a common occurrence, I’m too new at this blogging lark to know; or perhaps Lord Ahmed has powerful supporters in high places. I’m sure that other bloggers will let me know.
- Naturally I have checked out the IP address and e-mail address as being genuine.
{ 57 comments }
Perhaps she can sort out the parking ticket I got in Redcar last week.
Outside Pacitto’s, was it? It’s the very devil to park there when you want a nice cornet.
….”with dangerous driving only”…
Is that supposed to lessen the offence? Someone died from the result of that admitted dangerous driving.
One night ……………….. three of my children were munched on by Aliens because I was having something to eat with my friends and had left the kids alone in darkened rooms.
If! ………………… And I say ‘if’ the police come around my house to investigate with Eddie and Keela and they find …………. things. Will I get this kind of help from on high as well please?
I hope so. Being a British Subject and all that. I really hope so.
So as I understand it, the Noble Lord was definitely texting on the motorway which most of us would regard as dangerous, but fortunately didn’t have an accident. Shortly afterwards he failed to spot a stationary vehicle, hence indicating either that he was going too fast to stop in the distance he could see to be clear (which is dangerous), or that his attention was elsewhere (careless at least) and on this second occasion he killed someone. It would appear from the solicitor generals comments that he should have been charged with two counts of dangerous driving, one causing death. Is it an increase in sentance that is being sought?
An increase in Ms Curtis’s sentence is being considered, but there does not appear to be any suggestion that Lord Ahmed’s (potentially) 18 days was excessively lenient………..but then as Ms Baird has pointed out – Lord Ahmed had stopped texting before he had the accident…….
Saul 03.04.09 at 10:00 pm
….”with dangerous driving only”…
***********************************************
Saul! Stop being a fuddy-duddy! He is a bloody Lordy-Thingy for goodness sake! He has a passport to a World that we can only dream about.
Leave him alone now. Itwas only a bit of dangerous bloody driving! It’s not like he’s one of the Archery-Mandy-Milly Brigade.
I bet he has never done anything like this before ……………… I bet he is as pure and unblemished as that Methodist’s lad that’s currently allowing Mandy to run the country for him.
So the lord had apparently stopped texting before the accident. But that only means he hadn’t sent or received a text immediately beforehand, he could easily have been composing one though, just didn’t get to send it while he was busy (accidently) killing someone.
Anna Raccoon says: ”.but then as Ms Baird has pointed out – Lord Ahmed had stopped texting before he had the accident…….”
*****************************************************
But it begs the bloody question ……………….. What kind of texts had he been receiving or sending? Were they sexy texts that blurred his vision and causes such severe blood movement in his nether regions ………… that it perhaps knocked his steering wheel?
This kind of thing has happened before ………………….
Hi Pat! ………………. ”It would appear from the solicitor generals comments that he should have been charged with two counts of dangerous driving, one causing death. Is it an increase in sentance that is being sought?”
**********************************************************
Speaking from a personal point of view and having seen the victims cousins on the telly …………………… I would suggest a much much stronger sentence.
Send him to work at a call-centre for the Royal Bank of Scotland for three years.! That should cure him of his need to pick up a phone! phone.
Hey guys! I am just off to do a bit of aqua-planing on the motorway whilst its really slippy and wet.
If I kill any truckers or families returning from the cinema …………… would one of you contact this Lordy Ahmedear’s brief for me?
Cheers!
I am resisting arriving at the conclusion that there are such things as “Government-Goggles”; a bit like beer-goggles but Gov-Gogs seem to make an obvious double-standard evaporate.
With the greatest respect, the learned judge did not and indeed could not know whether the Noble Lord was or was not texting at the time of the crash. What was ascertained was that he was not sending a text at that time. He could have been reading a text that had arrived previously or indeed composing a reply to such a message. In view of his previous activity a few minutes before hand and the fact that he hit a stationary object which others had largely avoided the balance of probabilities suggests that he was indeed distracted by his texting activity. But of course that is “balance of probabilities” and not “beyond reasonable doubt”.
It would be interesting if the relatives of the deceased were to bring a civil action …..
More to the point, how did the august solictor general come across this post. Does she spend the tax payers money surfing the net for stories to comment on? Or was she directed here from some shadowy dept to have a butchers at it.
Why now Masser Saul, don’t you know Ms Raccoon is world famous?
And if it was indeed the solicitor general her eye is now upon us. Beware. Take cover. But don’t panic, she’ll probably leave the blog on a train or in a taxi so they’ll never find us again.
Perhaps Lord Ahmed’s 6 weeks’ /18 days’ (whichever it turns out to be) detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure will be really, really, really, gruesomely, horridly ghastly, an ordeal of grimness beyond our wildest imaginations, so 6 weeks or 18 days would be quite enough to teach him a very strong lesson and he will never text while driving again, whereas Ms Philippa Curtis might expect to spend her 21 months of porridge chatting happily with lovely people, crocheting a few doilies, snoozing in her own suite of cells and generally getting off lightly.
When I am old enough to vote I am going to acquaint myself with lots and lots of people in high places within the Government of the day.
And I will befriend lots and lots of lawyers like Caplan …………….
Way to go!
Maybe the Solicitor General requested a review of Ms Curtis’s sentence as it was obviously excessive when compared to Lord Ahmed, and she couldn’t let it appear that Ahmed received favourable treatment.
Saul 03.04.09 at 11:17 pm
More to the point, how did the august solictor general come across this post.
******************************************************************
It’s my fault! We go back years. I invited her on last week. Really lovely person. I think the site will be more interesting to have the enemy on the inside. My ethereal mate Stalin always said the same thing.
Apparently lots of people in high places already have their beady eyes on you.
Arthur Dent says: ……..”It would be interesting if the relatives of the deceased were to bring a civil action …..”
**************************************
It would be very interesting Arthur Dent!
Not quite as interesting as finding out a bit more about why the families of the Dunblane massacre children are still being kept in the dark ………….. But interesting for other reasons!
Such as why are some animals more equal than others?!
Mike – I believe the Solicitor General asked the Court of Appeal to rule on whether the sentence was unduly lenient.
Saul!!! Do you mean beady eyes are on all of us or just Anna Raccoon? If they are watchig me I will have to have my roots done and get a nail appointment this week.
I don’t want my roots being picked up by satellite …………. and having a horrid mug-shot on my police file that goes up on News At Ten. I want to look polished.
Is it true that the police don’t even give you time to comb your hair and put your make-up on when they force your front door off its hinges and barge into your bedroom at 6am in the morning when we are supposed to be in the delta stage of sleep? Is it true that they always carry automatic weapons when they go into the homes of subversive types?
I’m still troubled as to how she became aware of this in the first place. Is there some kind of “blogwatchdog” to alert the powers that be?
Saul! I rang her up when I knew she was on a coffee-break.
Maybe they are getting twitchy? Hence the Baird Watching!
lord ahmed could have been texting when he crashed but the text will not show up on the telephone record as it was never sent
Bairdwatch hosted by Blog Oddie, coming to a screen near you soon.
I think she will be a bundle of fun! I hope we have not upset her. I will be very sorry if she doesn’t come back.
Obama has just rung! He wishes us lots of love …………… and has chosen me to write to you all on his behalf.
Gordie Bruney hasn’t got back to me yet ………………. He said to just quote from Mandy for now ……………… or the Millies until he sorts himself out.
Gordie wants to know if he sounded like he was begging the US to stay friends with us when he did his speech today.
He said he just hopes that he didn’t sound as if he was sh*tting his pants about the US possibly abandoning us to Europe …………………
What could I say?
I haven’t been following this case – but if he killed someone & they were in a stationary vehicle – 18 days seems unbelievably lenient.
Blimey Karen, did you wet the bed, or have you not been there yet?
He should be doing five years.
It is blatantly obvious that this government are above the laws that regulate the rest of us. They must presumably believe that they are the true moral guardians and examples to us all. Their thieving, their murder, their corruption is truly outstanding. Their debasing of our democracy is becoming more self-evident with each passing moment. It is more representative of East Germany about 40 years ago. It is an authoritarian, anti-democratic neo-nazi cabal that needs to be removed from office as soon as possible. We can just hope that there is a general election soon when we, the people, can finally pass judgement on this crowd of trough swilling pigs.
So, putting aside the fact Lord Ahmed killed someone in a crash, because it really was an accident and in no way related to his previous texting activities: can the Solicitor General square the inconsistencies in Lord Ahmend’s case?
If he was prosecuted for the texting while driving only, then thats just a fixed penalty offence. Bit of a fine, points on the licence, slap on the wrist don’t do it again.
So why would he be jailed if the accident was unavoidable and in no way his fault?
One can only assume he was jailed because the crash was considered by the court to be avoidable and therefore Lord Ahmed had in some way contributed to the occurrence of the crash.
How does this square with the motorcyclist jailed for 6 months this week for riding at 122mph with his son on the back? No-one was killed, although he did take essessive risks and broke the law speeding. But Lord Ahmed took excessive risks texting and also broke the law whilst doing so.
So exactly what is the difference? The amount of funds available for a defence? Quality of counsel? Is that what people call justice? I know what I call it…..
Saul 03.05.09 at 12:28 am
I’m still troubled as to how she became aware of this in the first place. Is there some kind of “blogwatchdog” to alert the powers that be?
****
You don’t remember a certain pink person heading your gov’s Media Monitoring Unit?
‘allo Vera, how are you doing this morning.
I thought Allah was meant to watch over the faithful at all times.
Was he having a tea break or is the good lord unfaithful? I think we should be told.
I’d have thought that the evidence might reveal a little more or the truth behind the texting. For instance, over the sequence of texts, what was the interval between them in time/distance (perhaps it was about 2 minutes/2 miles, the interval since the “last” text sent)? What was the content of the texts, in particular the “final” one – did it indicate a sign-off from the conversation? Are there Muslim Masons, or does an army of 10,000 obviate the need for all that?
An X Type Jag has a stopping distance 60-0 mph of 120 ft (Car Magazines road tests) … about third of a length of a football pitch. Weather and visibility good at time of accident.
… and he didn’t see Audi to stop in time? … yeah right!
Over to you, Solicitor General.
I wonder if Our Vera (that’s how I think of her now) will be dropping in today for a chat. It does so raise the tone when the high and mighty drop in. Unless of course she is scouring the net looking for wrongs to right, re the poor downtrodden who have no voice. How altruistic of her.
As I’ve suggested, you cannot rationalize with this government and its friendly elites in law and the media. Despite all the evidence – “we have ways fo doing things” – is the motto of them all. Consider David Kelly. Consider BAE systems. Consider Mandelson, the unelected PM of the UK.
That doesn’t take into account reaction time, brake application time or physical forces affecting the effectiveness of the individual brakes (new/old). However I think a more productive approach would be training Lords to text and drive at the same time thus negating the possibility of further accidents.
So the message here is to text a bit on the motorway, then use your full concentration to kill someone. Very clear.
As to Vera Baird’s point about having stopped texting several miles earlier, note the TRL research cited below that:
“Drivers using the legal alternative to hand-held mobiles [hands free sets] are 30 per cent slower to react than those slightly over the limit, tests found.
And for up to ten minutes after a conversation their reflexes remain dulled , according to the Transport Research Laboratory.”
One could reasonably infer the same may happen with texting, a kind of conversation.
So depending on the speed at which the good Lord was travelling, and possibly the nature of the texts (which perhaps should be released into the public domain), the lack of texting at the time may be a red herring.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1157465/Hands-free-mobile-phones-dangerous-drink-driving.html
General election ? don’t be silly, we will have the civil contingencies bill brought in by another False flag operation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HSKvaFC39Q
Blink said …………………. ”Consider Mandelson, the unelected PM of the UK.”
***************************************************
I think this is one of the most pertinent comments of the day!
Mandy’s re-entry was so insidious ………………… apart from the bright pink jumper he was wearing whn he arrived at Downing Street.
I know of another bloke who crept in through the back door one day. I believe Poland has never really recovered from it all.
Hat tip to OH:
Seems others are now picking up on my points:
http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70016&Itemid=2
“Glasgow MP Muhammad Sarwar in his address said Lord Nazir has been sentenced on account of dangerous driving and no death charge has been levelled against him….
….Sarwar said according to the legal experts the custodial sentence awarded to Lord Ahmed was excessive and that he has valid grounds to appeal against the verdict. ”
I’ll refrain from comment lest I incriminate myself in some way.
Delphius ……………… ”I’ll refrain from comment lest I incriminate myself in some way.”
*****************************************************************
I know what you mean Delphius. I know what you mean.
Anna>Is she trying to say that he wasn’t distracted by his texting and was paying full attention when he killed young Mr Gombar.
AIUI that was what the judge stated. An earlier offence of dangerous driving (text messaging) came to light during the investigation into a road accident which involved the death of a slightly but not illegally drunk man who wandered back into the fast lane of the motorway to retrieve his mobile phone after he crashed his car.
Lord Ahmed was not punished for the accident, since he was not texting at the time, and was judged (I’m assuming) not to have caused it. He can’t be imprisoned for an offence that the court found didn’t happen – sorry.
The difference between this and the bloke with the 8-year old on his motorbike at 122mph seems to be a) the speed (obviously) and b) placing the life of an 8 year old child at serious risk.
The difference with the Curtis case is that she was on her phone when she caused the death of the other motorist.
> He could have been reading a text that had arrived previously or indeed composing a reply to such a message.
He could have been eating a knickerbocker glory and playing Yankee-Doodle-Dandy on a penny-whistle, while having his toes pleasured by Fergie, but unless there’s any evidence you’re just blog-speculating.
>And for up to ten minutes after a conversation their reflexes remain dulled , according to the Transport Research Laboratory.”
>One could reasonably infer the same may happen with texting, a kind of conversation.
>So depending on the speed at which the good Lord was travelling, and possibly the nature of the texts (which perhaps should be released into the public domain), the lack of texting at the time may be a red herring.
I thought the speed was 60mph or so – i.e., legal.
If we believe the Daily Wail for a minute, then you may have a point here – but I’m not aware that it is yet an offence to make a hands-free mobile phone call 10 minutes before driving. Please don’t give them any more ideas
I’m surprised to be saying it, but Vera Baird is right on this one.
Saul>Is there some kind of “blogwatchdog” to alert the powers that be?
It’s called “Google alerts”, and can be used by anyone. But did you know that?
Rgds
Are you saying Our Vera uses google alerts to notify her of specific posts in blogs so she can drop in and pass comments on them?
And no, I didn’t know that.
No – just saying that it is one easy way to do it. If I was a Minister’s Press Officer or Assistant it would be one of the first things I would do.
One definition of “sad” is to have a Google alert set up on your own name.
Yes, I do.
You used to be able to get Iain the Dale’s attention by dropping in a technorati tag like this: <a href=”iaindale, but I think most people use Google Alerts now instead.
Sorry: typo or editing problem. Technorati tag like this:
iaindale
Matt, I think the point was that “Our Vera” herself chose to pass comment. I could understand one of her underlings doing it in her departments name, but the venerable one herself. I don’t think many people would warrant the hands on approach she gave to the good Lord.
Call me old fashioned, but I use the checking back method, on posts I have commented on.
P.S. Who is Iaindale ?
I wish she would come along and join in again though! It was such a comfort to know that she found it so interesting. Out of all the millions of websites in the World …………. She chose ours! Lovely!
I bet she secretly wants to come back. Please come back Vera. We will be really friendly with you. I solemnly promise. Come and add the balance we need! Otherwise I will still be thinking that Lordy was given
special treatment.
Saul ………………You will like Iain Dale. He’s on your right in the blogroll.
iaindale.blogspot.com
Comments on this entry are closed.