View Full Version : 16 Days for Death by Dangerous driving
metalmonkey
13-03-09, 11:35 AM
Ok so that Labour Peer that got jailed, well he served 16 days and was then let out.....
So how in any possible way can justices have taken place? People get more time in prison for shoplifting, for FFS. One rule for them, eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7939988.stm
Luckypants
13-03-09, 11:43 AM
Read the article, he was NEVER accused of causing death by dangerous driving. He was convicted of dangerous driving after admitting sending texts while driving earlier, several minutes before the crash. He was not criminally responsible for the death of the other driver.
If there had not been a crashed car in lane 3 he would have not had an accident and therefore never investigated. The police would never have known he was texting while driving.
:rant:
Now whether 16 days for dangerous driving while texting is fair compared with 6 months for the 122mph speeding biker is an entirely different debate.
tj ready
13-03-09, 11:45 AM
That’s f***in stupid where is the justice these days the word has gone all t**s up :mad::mad:
timwilky
13-03-09, 11:54 AM
His early release was political and justice has yet again played second fiddle to a corrupt and incompetent governments whims.
Luckypants
13-03-09, 12:03 PM
This guy gets to walk free, after someone loses a loved one, just not right.
Again wrong. It was dark, the guy killed had already crashed into the central reservation and was stood in the carriageway. The Dangerous Driving charge was in no way related to the accident in which this person was killed, but the accident investigations found that Lord Ahmed had been texting on his phone sometime prior to the accident, so he was charged for that.
Luckypants
13-03-09, 12:03 PM
His early release was political and justice has yet again played second fiddle to a corrupt and incompetent governments whims.
Totally agree.
MiniMatt
13-03-09, 12:07 PM
Seriously, read what Lucky has written - he was never charged with anything to do with the death of the other guy - the other guy who had crashed prior to the event and was stationary in the fast lane of the motorway.
The *only* thing he was charged with was dangerous driving for texting - in no way was this tied to the death of the other driver.
Now, if you want to go for the "one rule for them another for us" line then sure that's a bandwagon I typically support - but I also like to win my arguments and there are better examples than this to use in support of that argument.
It could be argued that 12 days in prison for texting whilst driving is lenient, but I suspect there are also significant swathes of the population who "get off" with points and fine too, so perhaps it could also be looked upon as harsh.
So a guy gets 6 months for doing 122mph on a motorcycle.
And he gets a few days?
If he hadn't of text, he'd have seen the car facing him with headlights on after the accident?????????
Sickening....
Luckypants
13-03-09, 01:09 PM
So a guy gets 6 months for doing 122mph on a motorcycle.
And he gets a few days?
That for me is what boils my blood. I really hate the inconsistent sentencing policy.
If he hadn't of text, he'd have seen the car facing him with headlights on after the accident?????????
Sickening....
Sigh! He was not texting at the time of the accident or immediately prior to it. He was texting several minutes before, which at motorway speeds means several miles before. He was done for the texting.
Do you really think that a car that had hit the central reserve and spun would still have lights left to be shining down the road?
gruntygiggles
13-03-09, 01:20 PM
Wow......even if you really trust a person that tells a story, go and research it yourself before you build an opinion because, as with the original post, the information is not always correct.
Bluethunder, I do see why you are mad about this, the Portugese lorry driver that got 3 years for wiping out a family of six will only spend 1 year 27 days in jail...that is wrong.
With this case though, listen to Luckypants. If you hit the central reservation at motorway speeds, your lights will not be shining down the road.
Lord Ahmed was sentenced for the use of his mobile for texting several minutes before the accident so it was a totally seperate incident.
I feel for the guy. I think he's an idiot for using his phone while driving, but he wasn't at the time of the accident. Instead, he was travelling down a motorway at night, not using his phone ans hit a man that was in the carriageway. He was not found to be in any way to blame for that incident and so we should not condemn him for it. All I feel for him because he's going to remember that night forever and regardless of him not being at fault for the death, he's never going to forget it. I think that's worse than 16 days in jail!
The BBC report states:
'The Appeal Court suspended his sentence because of "exceptional" mitigation relating to his community work.'
So get involved in charity work and you get a 'get out of jail' card.
gruntygiggles
13-03-09, 01:30 PM
The BBC report states:
'The Appeal Court suspended his sentence because of "exceptional" mitigation relating to his community work.'
So get involved in charity work and you get a 'get out of jail' card.
Didn't know that one! Well.........I suppose they had to find some excuse for letting him off the hook for his charge without appearing to have one rule for him and one for every one else. Shame it's so transparent!
Luckypants
13-03-09, 01:31 PM
The BBC report states:
'The Appeal Court suspended his sentence because of "exceptional" mitigation relating to his community work.'
That's the same old chestnut football players use to get off to. Amazing how they can spirit up all this charity work when needed.
He should have got 6 months stir, same as the guy speeding on the bike. Or they should let the speeding guy out.... consistency is all that is required here. (shame the biker is not loaded like Lord Ahmed and able to afford an appeal.:rolleyes:)
MiniMatt
13-03-09, 01:31 PM
The BBC report states:
'The Appeal Court suspended his sentence because of "exceptional" mitigation relating to his community work.'
So get involved in charity work and you get a 'get out of jail' card.
Work for the Police Benevolent Fund and you get two "get out of jail" cards :D
punyXpress
13-03-09, 01:53 PM
Hasn't recent research by ( I believe ) the RAC shown that people who have been using mobiles are still a danger several minutes after doing so. Hands free are very little better, as for bringing in a law that will only be enforced after several months, WTF?
Sigh! He was not texting at the time of the accident or immediately prior to it. He was texting several minutes before, which at motorway speeds means several miles before. He was done for the texting.
Do you really think that a car that had hit the central reserve and spun would still have lights left to be shining down the road?
Unless it turned 90 degrees and hit the barrier head on, then yes one, if not both headlights would still be on. Seeing as he's likley to be doign 70mph+, hitting the barrier at 90 degrees head on would be extremly hard. If you hit it at an angle like most impacts do, it would hit, sping round smashing the glass, but most of the time not effecting the bulbs.
Hence why even after frontal accidents, lights hanging out everywhere, you still usually need to turn the lights off (if on obviously)..
I know, i've jsut had an accident in the 3rd lane, lets turn the lights off and walk away.
The guy had the accident, the impact happened before he had time to get out, hence the death. The guy sent the text before the impact, but you think he just put his phone down... Didn't check it was sent, re-locked his phone etc... Takes 10 seconds odd. Distance travelled in 10 seconds at 70mph please????
I can read.
Sigh............
northwind
13-03-09, 07:42 PM
The guy sent the text before the impact, but you think he just put his phone down... Didn't check it was sent, re-locked his phone etc... Takes 10 seconds odd. Distance travelled in 10 seconds at 70mph please????
I can read.
Sigh............
Can you read the part where the crash happened several MINUTES after the text? Never thought I'd see you on the same side as Brake :)
Luckypants- good on you mate!
Guy who crased was also drunk and had returned to car to get something, another car had already had a minor collision with said car before . So here we have a drunk driver who crashes his car leaves it in the fast lane of a motorway causes two other people to have accidents and sadly loses his life. If this guy had crashed into another car and perhaps wiped out an entire family because he was drunk and died as a result would the outcry be the same.
littleperson
14-03-09, 08:03 PM
Despite all that you think and have an opinion on, unless you sat on the jury or have the points of law in front of you to convict on nowt will ever seem fair
I sat on a jury in January and the point of law was clear and concise providin you looked at it objectively. However 12 people have to agree but its amazin how people are swayed by compasion etc even when they shouldnt be which is bad enough for "joe public" but not 3 judges who "supposedly" know understand and know the law
Not only that how can anyone have "mitigatin" circumstances to text while drivin - we could all say that!
I could argue as a teacher it would "irreparably and permanently" damaging to the work I do in the community I teach in
Where do we draw the line or is it always has been and always will be
one law for them and one law for the rest of us
Biker Biggles
14-03-09, 09:02 PM
Ok so that Labour Peer that got jailed, well he served 16 days and was then let out.....
So how in any possible way can justices have taken place? People get more time in prison for shoplifting, for FFS. One rule for them, eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7939988.stm
He didnt get jailed for Death by dangerous driving.And you know that very well as you posted much the same at the time and were told exactly what he had been jailed for.Cant let the truth get in the way of a good bit of inflamation though can we?
As for the corruption of an appeal system that relies on who you are and who you know thats a different matter.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.