Texting peer freed after appeal
12 March 2009, 05:14 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Texting peer freed after appeal
BBC NEWS | England | South Yorkshire | Texting peer freed after appeal
"the court had been persuaded that it could now take an "exceptional" course and suspend the 12 weeks for 12 months. " Shock horror.
Sounds like he's taking the gravy train these days.
"the court had been persuaded that it could now take an "exceptional" course and suspend the 12 weeks for 12 months. " Shock horror.
Sounds like he's taking the gravy train these days.
12 March 2009, 05:31 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't say why though does it? Utter rubbish. The man should be ashamed to even appear in public. He killed someone he should at least have the ***** to do the time for it.
Mockery of justice.
5t.
Mockery of justice.
5t.
12 March 2009, 05:45 PM
#4
Usual sexing up of a story:
Essentially he was found guilty of dangerous driving, for which that sentence is about standard. He wasn't found guilty of the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
M
The sentencing judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, made it clear his text messaging had finished two minutes before the accident took place and was not connected.
Essentially he was found guilty of dangerous driving, for which that sentence is about standard. He wasn't found guilty of the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
M
12 March 2009, 05:49 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
12 March 2009, 07:24 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: ....
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if you pulled into a service station, parked up, sent text, then 2 minutes later drove out onto the motorway and crashed?
Guilty?
A difficult one this, and something that could happen to any of us.
Guilty?
A difficult one this, and something that could happen to any of us.
12 March 2009, 07:52 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West London
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 March 2009, 07:54 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a bit of a tangent, it would be interesting for mobile phones to have some activity log that monitors when it receives input from the user (not the actual input, just that it has received some), thus proving conclusively if he was for example about to send a text before this Peer smashed into this poor bloke.
12 March 2009, 08:10 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've never sent a text in my life, and now don't even own a mobile
12 March 2009, 09:21 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See this is what frustrates me sometimes so much. You all believe what the press choose to report, simply because it makes for a better story.
The sending of texts had NOTHING to do with the death, as tragic as that death was. There was nothing Lord Ahmed could have done to avoid the crash - the deceased had gone back to his car to get his mobile phone and was in the middle of the motorway where he shouldn't have and did not need to be. IIRC, other vehicles had already struck the deceased's vehicle to avoid him, immediately prior to Lord Ahmed hitting him.
In the course of the usual investigation, it was abundantly clear that AT THE TIME OF THE CRASH WHICH CAUSED THE DEATH, Lord Ahmed was not driving dangerously. What was discovered though was the fact that he had been texting whilst driving, prior to the crash. Hence the charge simply being dangerous driving.
I can comment because I was there when he was sentenced, appearing to prosecute a trial in front of the same Judge after this case AND because a silk in my chambers represented him.
Nice to know the press don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
The sending of texts had NOTHING to do with the death, as tragic as that death was. There was nothing Lord Ahmed could have done to avoid the crash - the deceased had gone back to his car to get his mobile phone and was in the middle of the motorway where he shouldn't have and did not need to be. IIRC, other vehicles had already struck the deceased's vehicle to avoid him, immediately prior to Lord Ahmed hitting him.
In the course of the usual investigation, it was abundantly clear that AT THE TIME OF THE CRASH WHICH CAUSED THE DEATH, Lord Ahmed was not driving dangerously. What was discovered though was the fact that he had been texting whilst driving, prior to the crash. Hence the charge simply being dangerous driving.
I can comment because I was there when he was sentenced, appearing to prosecute a trial in front of the same Judge after this case AND because a silk in my chambers represented him.
Nice to know the press don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
12 March 2009, 09:21 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much of a defence when he could have been replying to a received text. The 2 mins beforehand thing was probably the last recorded time of a signal to his phone of a received/sent text. How accurate is 2 mins anyway, seems awfully close. At the end of the day the guy crashed into a stationary car and ended up killing someone. That's negligence in my book even if he wasn't texting.
12 March 2009, 10:42 PM
#17
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See this is what frustrates me sometimes so much. You all believe what the press choose to report, simply because it makes for a better story.
The sending of texts had NOTHING to do with the death, as tragic as that death was. There was nothing Lord Ahmed could have done to avoid the crash - the deceased had gone back to his car to get his mobile phone and was in the middle of the motorway where he shouldn't have and did not need to be. IIRC, other vehicles had already struck the deceased's vehicle to avoid him, immediately prior to Lord Ahmed hitting him.
In the course of the usual investigation, it was abundantly clear that AT THE TIME OF THE CRASH WHICH CAUSED THE DEATH, Lord Ahmed was not driving dangerously. What was discovered though was the fact that he had been texting whilst driving, prior to the crash. Hence the charge simply being dangerous driving.
I can comment because I was there when he was sentenced, appearing to prosecute a trial in front of the same Judge after this case AND because a silk in my chambers represented him.
Nice to know the press don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
The sending of texts had NOTHING to do with the death, as tragic as that death was. There was nothing Lord Ahmed could have done to avoid the crash - the deceased had gone back to his car to get his mobile phone and was in the middle of the motorway where he shouldn't have and did not need to be. IIRC, other vehicles had already struck the deceased's vehicle to avoid him, immediately prior to Lord Ahmed hitting him.
In the course of the usual investigation, it was abundantly clear that AT THE TIME OF THE CRASH WHICH CAUSED THE DEATH, Lord Ahmed was not driving dangerously. What was discovered though was the fact that he had been texting whilst driving, prior to the crash. Hence the charge simply being dangerous driving.
I can comment because I was there when he was sentenced, appearing to prosecute a trial in front of the same Judge after this case AND because a silk in my chambers represented him.
Nice to know the press don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
I agree, and did you hear any mention about the fact that "Martyn Gombar, 28, a Slovakian father of two living in Manchester, who had been drinking" might have contributed to his own death? - because it isn't very obvious in most of the press articles
That little "item" seems to have been ignored by most of the "media"!
mb
12 March 2009, 11:25 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
It amazes me that people continue to believe, hook line and sinker, everything the press/TV/radio put in front of them, without ever questioning it
Half the “stories” in the press are just recycled company press releases, or ridiculous company sponsored surveys, barely disguised as advertising -- Journo’s are as lazy as the rest of us, and this story just smells of lazy lazy journalism
Chocolate fights cancer ---- just look a little deeper and you’ll find the research is sponsored by Mars
Half the “stories” in the press are just recycled company press releases, or ridiculous company sponsored surveys, barely disguised as advertising -- Journo’s are as lazy as the rest of us, and this story just smells of lazy lazy journalism
Chocolate fights cancer ---- just look a little deeper and you’ll find the research is sponsored by Mars
13 March 2009, 01:17 AM
#19
It amazes me that people continue to believe, hook line and sinker, everything the press/TV/radio put in front of them, without ever questioning it
Half the “stories” in the press are just recycled company press releases, or ridiculous company sponsored surveys, barely disguised as advertising -- Journo’s are as lazy as the rest of us, and this story just smells of lazy lazy journalism
Chocolate fights cancer ---- just look a little deeper and you’ll find the research is sponsored by Mars
Half the “stories” in the press are just recycled company press releases, or ridiculous company sponsored surveys, barely disguised as advertising -- Journo’s are as lazy as the rest of us, and this story just smells of lazy lazy journalism
Chocolate fights cancer ---- just look a little deeper and you’ll find the research is sponsored by Mars
You can hardly blame the press for pandering to peoples prejudices. They are trying to make a profit after all is said and done.
Like the advertorial reference BTW
13 March 2009, 08:16 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, if you want to believe that he caused the accident, feel free.
13 March 2009, 04:23 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC his car was clipped by one car and 'evasive action' had to be taken from another driver. No-one is disputing that if the guy wasn't drink driving and had crashed in the first place then he'd more than likely still be alive today. The actual reason he is dead now was he was stuck by the Lord who was likely distracted from what was going on in front of him by indulging in an illegal act.
13 March 2009, 04:31 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Its OK, the guy wasn't english and by all accounts had indeed already crashed having been on a drug and drink fueled rampage across the motorway. Lord Ahmed clearly saw fit to finish the job. "one less johnny foreigner" he wasn't quoted as not saying hypocritically.
Last edited by EddScott; 13 March 2009 at 04:32 PM.
13 March 2009, 05:43 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 March 2009, 05:49 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See this is what frustrates me sometimes so much. You all believe what the press choose to report, simply because it makes for a better story.
The sending of texts had NOTHING to do with the death, as tragic as that death was. There was nothing Lord Ahmed could have done to avoid the crash - the deceased had gone back to his car to get his mobile phone and was in the middle of the motorway where he shouldn't have and did not need to be. IIRC, other vehicles had already struck the deceased's vehicle to avoid him, immediately prior to Lord Ahmed hitting him.
In the course of the usual investigation, it was abundantly clear that AT THE TIME OF THE CRASH WHICH CAUSED THE DEATH, Lord Ahmed was not driving dangerously. What was discovered though was the fact that he had been texting whilst driving, prior to the crash. Hence the charge simply being dangerous driving.
I can comment because I was there when he was sentenced, appearing to prosecute a trial in front of the same Judge after this case AND because a silk in my chambers represented him.
Nice to know the press don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
The sending of texts had NOTHING to do with the death, as tragic as that death was. There was nothing Lord Ahmed could have done to avoid the crash - the deceased had gone back to his car to get his mobile phone and was in the middle of the motorway where he shouldn't have and did not need to be. IIRC, other vehicles had already struck the deceased's vehicle to avoid him, immediately prior to Lord Ahmed hitting him.
In the course of the usual investigation, it was abundantly clear that AT THE TIME OF THE CRASH WHICH CAUSED THE DEATH, Lord Ahmed was not driving dangerously. What was discovered though was the fact that he had been texting whilst driving, prior to the crash. Hence the charge simply being dangerous driving.
I can comment because I was there when he was sentenced, appearing to prosecute a trial in front of the same Judge after this case AND because a silk in my chambers represented him.
Nice to know the press don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
Sorry but two other vehicles managed to avoid this accident, one fair dos did clip him but didn't kill them.
Are you telling me that if Lord Ahmed was driving:
1. Within the speed limit
2. With full concentration on his driving and not waiting for a reply to one of THE SEVERAL texts he had sent
3. As the Highway Code says.. able to stop within the distance he could see to be clear
That this wouldn't have happened? Lets not alos forget that he wasn't driving some rusty shed he was driving a good car with advanced braking etc and for some reason was driving in the fast lane on an empty motorway.
In my mind he was lucky (and that's being polite) not to get done for causing death by dangerous driving because it is blatently obvious that is what he did.
Because of that he should have at least taken the rap he was given quitely and severed his time. One again, no ***** and a brass neck.
5t.
13 March 2009, 05:55 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West London
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is he wasn't an Asian Lord and was say a member of Scoobynet driving an STi would you all jump on his case so quickly. I'd say anyone wandering around on the motorway pissed up after crashing their car is putting themselves in danger along with other road users.
Must remember to keep my eyes glued to the road on my next long motorway journey just in case a mutant ninja zombie happens to be wandering about lane 3.
Must remember to keep my eyes glued to the road on my next long motorway journey just in case a mutant ninja zombie happens to be wandering about lane 3.
13 March 2009, 06:23 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is he wasn't an Asian Lord and was say a member of Scoobynet driving an STi would you all jump on his case so quickly. I'd say anyone wandering around on the motorway pissed up after crashing their car is putting themselves in danger along with other road users.
Must remember to keep my eyes glued to the road on my next long motorway journey just in case a mutant ninja zombie happens to be wandering about lane 3.
Must remember to keep my eyes glued to the road on my next long motorway journey just in case a mutant ninja zombie happens to be wandering about lane 3.
Yes do keep your eyes glued to the road, it's what you should be doing anyway.
13 March 2009, 06:57 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West London
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes do keep your eyes glued to the road, it's what you should be doing anyway.
13 March 2009, 07:01 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West London
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lord Ahmed, 51, who was jailed at Sheffield Crown Court on February 25, was not present for the appeal ruling by three judges in London.
He was involved in an accident which left a man dead on the M1 near Rotherham, South Yorkshire, on Christmas Day 2007.
The sentencing judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, made it clear his text messaging had finished two minutes before the accident took place and was not connected.
Martyn Gombar, 28, a Slovakian who was living in Leigh, Lancashire, died when Lord Ahmed's Jaguar hit an Audi car which had stopped in the fast lane of the motorway.
Subsequent tests showed Mr Gombar had been drinking and crashed his car into the central reservation, spinning it round.
As Lord Ahmed approached the Audi it was facing the wrong way straddling the two outermost lanes in total darkness.
Allowing the peer's appeal Lady Justice Hallett said there was "little or nothing" Lord Ahmed could have done to avoid the collision.
Lord Ahmed was knocked unconscious for a while but when he came to he telephoned the emergency services and "risked his life trying to flag down other vehicles to stop them colliding with the Audi or his car".
Over a period of about 10 to 15 minutes beforehand Lord Ahmed had received and read two text messages and composed and sent three "substantial" text messages on his mobile phone, the court heard.
The text message conversation had ended 1.86 miles, or two minutes, before the collision with the Audi.
The exchange of messages with a journalist took place as the peer was travelling at around 60mph over a 17.8-mile stretch of the carriageway.
He was involved in an accident which left a man dead on the M1 near Rotherham, South Yorkshire, on Christmas Day 2007.
The sentencing judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, made it clear his text messaging had finished two minutes before the accident took place and was not connected.
Martyn Gombar, 28, a Slovakian who was living in Leigh, Lancashire, died when Lord Ahmed's Jaguar hit an Audi car which had stopped in the fast lane of the motorway.
Subsequent tests showed Mr Gombar had been drinking and crashed his car into the central reservation, spinning it round.
As Lord Ahmed approached the Audi it was facing the wrong way straddling the two outermost lanes in total darkness.
Allowing the peer's appeal Lady Justice Hallett said there was "little or nothing" Lord Ahmed could have done to avoid the collision.
Lord Ahmed was knocked unconscious for a while but when he came to he telephoned the emergency services and "risked his life trying to flag down other vehicles to stop them colliding with the Audi or his car".
Over a period of about 10 to 15 minutes beforehand Lord Ahmed had received and read two text messages and composed and sent three "substantial" text messages on his mobile phone, the court heard.
The text message conversation had ended 1.86 miles, or two minutes, before the collision with the Audi.
The exchange of messages with a journalist took place as the peer was travelling at around 60mph over a 17.8-mile stretch of the carriageway.
Goes against what I said above as this also is a report from a paper (the Telegraph)
13 March 2009, 07:28 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sentencing judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, made it clear his text messaging had finished two minutes before the accident took place and was not connected.
Martyn Gombar, 28, a Slovakian who was living in Leigh, Lancashire, died when Lord Ahmed's Jaguar hit an Audi car which had stopped in the fast lane of the motorway.
As Lord Ahmed approached the Audi it was facing the wrong way straddling the two outermost lanes in total darkness.
Also see earlier point. Why wasn't his Lordship driving in the left lane LIKE HE'S SUPPOSED TO?
Car was out of the way and well lit enough for two other people to avoid it.
The exchange of messages with a journalist took place as the peer was travelling at around 60mph over a 17.8-mile stretch of the carriageway.
The man is a pillock and used his status to get off. I doubt anyone else would have got off this lightly but if they had i'd be as annoyed at them too. End of.
5t.