Its one rule for them and......

**ratewhore** · 25 February 2009, 16:04

His legal team played the religion card:

The barrister said his client provided an important function for the country both nationally and internationally, particularly in the field of inter-faith relations.

**DimPrawn** · 25 February 2009, 16:17

One had the best legal representation money could buy and a place in the House of Lords. The other didn't.

**Bagpuss** · 25 February 2009, 16:35

Mr Justice Wilkie said: "It's clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident."

Seems to contradict...

"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."

**xoggoth** · 25 February 2009, 20:42

If you look at that other case it also says that the accident happened "shortly after" she had made the call. From the limited information available, the two are completely comparable.

I would say that actually Ahmed's case is worse because he is at least ten years older. At that age one's eyes are usually well into losing the range of focus necessary to switch between text on a tiny screen and the road ahead.

It is indeed one law for Muslim peers, another for the rest of us.

**BrilloPad** · 25 February 2009, 20:53

Originally posted by Flashman View Post

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm

21 months in prison and banned from driving for three years

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/7909510.stm

12 weeks. banned from driving for a year

It was lack of morals (Neil Hamilton etc) that bought down the Torys in 97 : will this case mark the end of the current Labour Government?

**TykeMerc** · 25 February 2009, 20:53

Originally posted by xoggoth View Post

It is indeed one law for Muslim peers, another for the rest of us.

Of course it is, sadly that's not a surprise to anyone with a brain.

The addition of top notch legal representation probably helped too.

**London75** · 26 February 2009, 08:49

I hate to defend the idiot as I hate driving texters but didn't she veer off the road and plough into a static motorist while he crashed into a static car that had already crashed and been hit by another car in the outside lane at night.

I can see the similarities but whereas she did definitely kill the girl due to lack of concentration, he would have had the same accident texting or not.

**expat** · 26 February 2009, 08:58

Originally posted by London75 View Post

I hate to defend the idiot as I hate driving texters but didn't she veer off the road and plough into a static motorist while he crashed into a static car that had already crashed and been hit by another car in the outside lane at night.

I can see the similarities but whereas she did definitely kill the girl due to lack of concentration, he would have had the same accident texting or not.

That is how I read it. He was jailed for dangerous driving, not for having the accident; as it happens the first was only exposed because of the second. The judge acknowledged that the texting didn't cause the accident:

Mr Justice Wilkie said: "It's clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident."

**tim123** · 26 February 2009, 11:23

Originally posted by Bagpuss View Post

Mr Justice Wilkie said: "It's clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident."

Seems to contradict...

"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."

No, because the texting was 3 miles before the accident and the accident was caused by his driving into a stationary car in the outside lane.

You might argue that the type of person who is going to text whilst in the outside lane is the type of person who always drives dangerously, but I think that (for most of you) stepping back and looking at your own driving might change your mind.

So, no causal link between the criminal offence of "texting whilst driving" and the accident, which ISTM was exactly that, an accident which could easily have ended the same way if it were you driving down the outside lane at 70 mph to find a stationary car just in front of you.

Thankfully, UK law prosecutes you for what (it can be proved) you actually did, not what you might have done.

tim

Its one rule for them and......