Rules for us and rules for them it makes me ■■■■■■■ SICK.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sout … 909510.stm
Mr Justice Wilkie said: “It’s clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident.”
timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u … 335336.ece
Jail them, fine them hang them but FFS if they are mp’s then its ok just slap their arses.
Or maybe he played the racist card?.
Your spot on there mate,12wks what a joke we must be the laughing stock of the eu and the world.The judges who administer these paltry sentences need to be sacked.
It’s interesting to see how this case was dealt with diferantly from the da silva case both were involved in fatal crashes both were distracted while driving and neither caused the original crash but the lowly trucker gets 3 years and lord ahmed gets 12 weeks it doesn’t seem fair.
But he added: "It is of the greatest importance that people realise what a serious offence dangerous driving of this type is.
Well give him a heftier ■■■■ ing sentance then for christs sake its not rocket science is it? Until the Justice system starts being just, people are going to carry on breaking the law in such ways.
If somebody really (zb) you off and you want to take the law into your own hands, my advice for you is to mow them down in your car and kill em, you will either get a slap on the wrist or a few weeks in jail just like our MP friend. The judges are making it so that if you knock down and kill someone in a car its ok. Rant over and dont (zb) me off or I will be behind you in my car revving the balls off it just before i take you out 
edited for languageif it need’s star’s it’s not allowedmm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/sout … 909510.stm
“Mr Justice Wilkie made clear the texting incident had no bearing on the fatal collision.”
telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop … orway.html
"Mr Gombar and his 30-year-old passenger had managed to get out of the car and cross to the hard shoulder.
But Mr Gombar returned to his car, apparently to retrieve a telephone to raise the alarm, before the collision.
The peer denied any responsibility for the tragedy, including that he was sending a text message at the time of the crash.
He said: "I totally deny this allegation [that I sent a text message] and I have nothing else more to say. I was not using my phone at the time.
“I welcome the inquiry because it will vindicate me. I have co-operated with the police fully and there is an ongoing inquiry into this.”
If the texting incident had no bearing on the final incident why didn’t he see him?
Two other cars had managed to avoid the stranded Audi!!
Stan
He also got a £500 fine, that is a night out with a meal to him. Justice is for those that can afford it.
i seem to rmember that the woman who killed they lady from northamptonshire on the hard shoulder tried to use the line, me using my phone to send and recieve messages didnt have a direct cause to me crashing into her, hmmmm seems they used that this time and it worked, strange world we live in…
He wasn’t on the phone at the time of the accident. The guy who was killed was drunk, he lost control of his car which then hit the central reservation and was left in the outside lane in the dark with no lights on, on an unlit stretch of motorway. The drunk went back to the car and whilst crossing the motorway was hit by the Jag (another car clipped the stranded car aswell). I happen to think the jail sentence is too harsh as he was in full control at the time and who expects to see a pedestrian in the middle of an unlit motorway in darkness ■■ Sending the text messages had nothing to do with it as records show the phone hadn’t been used for more than 2 mins before the accident.
If he was seen on the phone by the old bill and prosecuted it would have been £60 and 3 points.
As for the Northants woman ,she was messing with the phone at the time of the accident, thats why she drifted on to the hard shoulder.
It says ERF not RAF:
who expects to see a pedestrian in the middle of an unlit motorway in darkness ■■ Sending the text messages had nothing to do with it as records show the phone hadn’t been used for more than 2 mins before the accident.
The records cannot record him reading or composing a message. Having recieved one 2 mins earlier it might be fair to assume that he is either/or reading/or replying? They do show he had recieved it and it had been read.
Always drive at a speed you can safely see and stop within unless you have a few bob and some contacts 
I mean who expects a kid to pop out from between parked cars?
See this really sits uneasy for me.
Could be on the phone chatting in a layby then drive off hit someone and suddenly i’m getting done with dangerous driving because i was using the phone minutes before the accident.
Only good thing about being a truck driver is can prove with a tachograph was stationary, but what if you were driving a van or a car. Maybe you had important business and were doing the sensible thing, stoping using your phone and minutes later an accident happend.
Better hope someone can back up your story you were parked up using it.
I know its different because this guy was on a motorway and wasn’t stoped but it is becoming more and more kangeroo court stuff with driving offences, its a case of prove yourself innocence rather than being found guilty.
Chances are this guy was maybe using the phone at the time of the accident, but maybe he wasn’t. Thought the courts were meant to be beyond reasonable doubt. Can anyone be 100% sure he was using the phone if not should it even be used in the case of this accident.
]
[/quote]
Mr Justice Wilkie said: "It’s clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident.
ahem,if the good judge was positive the texting/recieving texts had no bearing on the accident,why did he jail Ahmed for 12 weeks?
personally i think as it couldn’t be proven he was typing or reading a text,the judge gave him a sentence that might satisfy the public that some sort of justice had been done.Only ahmed, and the passengers in his car that night know the full truth…,and they have got to live with it. 
Driving a truck these days, if your involved in a fatal accident even if it aint your fault its seems you’ll be lucky not to get sent to jail unless there is loads of witness and evidence it wasn’t your fault.
Remember hearing about a case where someone killed a cyclist driving a car, don’t think it was the drivers fault but he called an ambulance and the police etc… then called his laywer. He was critised for doing this, showing no compassion. I can understand that but in the back of my mind i think the guy was right cause it seems these days there is no such thing as an accident and the blame always seems to get pinned on the person driving a vehicle.
Remember reading about another case on safe speed forum, someone hit and injured an eldery woman, steped out in front of the driver, he couldn’t stop. Behind the driver was an advanced driving instructor who gave evidence that the driver was doing the speed limit had no chance of stoping, the eldery woman basically walked right out in front of him within his breaking distance. Even with this evidence the court still convicted of careless driving and banned the driver.
Mike-C:
The records cannot record him reading or composing a message. Having recieved one 2 mins earlier it might be fair to assume that he is either/or reading/or replying? They do show he had recieved it and it had been read.
Yes but you can’t lock someone up for years based on a “fair assumption”, you have to do it on provable facts and in this case nobody can prove that he was using the phone at the time of the crash, and so on the basis of innocent until proven guilty it doesn’t make a significant difference to the case.
As far as I can tell the difference between these two cases is that one hit a stationary car in broad daylight after warnings on matrix signs that there was a queue and the other hit someone walking to an unlit stationary car in lane3 in the dark with no warning. On that basis it seems obvious to me who deserves the greater sentence.
Paul
hoakster:
Mr Justice Wilkie said: "It’s clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident.
ahem,if the good judge was positive the texting/recieving texts had no bearing on the accident,why did he jail Ahmed for 12 weeks?
personally i think as it couldn’t be proven he was typing or reading a text,the judge gave him a sentence that might satisfy the public that some sort of justice had been done.Only ahmed, and the passengers in his car that night know the full truth…,and they have got to live with it.
Mr Justice Wilkie:-
"It is of the greatest importance that people realise what a serious offence dangerous driving of this type is.
“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.”
Lord Ahmed pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.
In essence he’s been jailed for using his phone whilst driving.
Stan
It says ERF not RAF:
He wasn’t on the phone at the time of the accident. The guy who was killed was drunk, he lost control of his car which then hit the central reservation and was left in the outside lane in the dark with no lights on, on an unlit stretch of motorway. The drunk went back to the car and whilst crossing the motorway was hit by the Jag (another car clipped the stranded car aswell). I happen to think the jail sentence is too harsh as he was in full control at the time and who expects to see a pedestrian in the middle of an unlit motorway in darkness ■■ Sending the text messages had nothing to do with it as records show the phone hadn’t been used for more than 2 mins before the accident.
If he was seen on the phone by the old bill and prosecuted it would have been £60 and 3 points.
As for the Northants woman ,she was messing with the phone at the time of the accident, thats why she drifted on to the hard shoulder.
I agree with you, anyway if that drunken idiot hadn’t been onthe road illegally he would be alive today.
He got what he deserved, the muppet.
Well there is one possibly two of fences here.
The First of dangerous driving was committed when he was texting & driving, which is like driving with your eyes shut. Totally stupid & Even more dangerous than watching a DVD & driving which has been mentioned before.
The Second Possible offense, which may have been committed when he hit the car on the motorway whilst driving as far as we can tell correctly.
At 70 mph on a dip beam the lights dont shine far enough ahead for the required braking distance or in other words by the time you see a hazzard it’s too late to stop.
From whats been said I dont see how he has committed an offense from the crash. It sounds like the the man who died only had himself to blame.
If your asking did Lord Whatshisface deserve to go to prison for texting & driving. Well IMO yes, but that also applies to anybody who does it, & these ■■■■■■■ truckers whos watch DVD whilst driving as well, except for longer as a 44tonne artic has about 40x more momentum than a car, & takes a lot longer to stop.
I’d say these activities are more dangerous than Drink Driving when your just over the limit.
Yet you can spot these things going on everyday, & if no accident takes place quite often the offender will get a 3pt point £60 fine or even just a “verbal”.
So next time you see a Trucker watching Die Hard on the M1, & you spot them later at a MSA, why not give a kick in the balls!
I recently watched one of those BBC Cop shows. They were investigating the death of a Squaddie who was well oiled & went for a walk in the middle of the night in the outside lane of an unlit duel carrageway.
Needless to say he was hit & killed. The Police simulated what the driver would have seen & how long it would have taken for him to stop.
They concluded he couldnt be held responsible & no charges were brought. Though he was having a hard time living with his own feelings of guilt.