Are they sure this person is from Labour?

FrostedNipple · 25-02-2009, 13:52

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

Ridiculous that he is a Lord. His title should be taken from him and he should be given 12 months not weeks.

Desmo · 25-02-2009, 13:56

So what's the difference between this case and the lorry driver who got years for doing similar?
I agree, his title should be used as another form of punishment.

Lomster · 25-02-2009, 14:01

OMG he killed someone because he was busy texting and he only gets 12weeks?
That is shocking, and I agree he should have Lord taken away from him as he does not deserve it IMO.

cleanbluesky · 25-02-2009, 14:41

He's one of the token Muslims they trot out any time they need to pacify the savages. What a scumbag

Desmo · 25-02-2009, 15:02

Having read the article again, it seems the texting had nothing to do with the accident. Typical sensational headline really. The car he hit had already crashed and was parked backwards in the outside lane of the motorway. Somebody else had already hit it and another had to swerve around it. That could have been any number of people that caused the fatal impact.

Streeteh · 25-02-2009, 15:06

It says in the article that the texting held no sway on the crash itself; by that i presume they mean he had finished texting well before he actually crashed and killed the man. He is being charged for the use of his mobile phone while driving, not for actually causing a fatal accident as he didn't cause it. As it also said in the article two other cars barely missed the guy as he had totalled his car in the fast lane at night, i imagine his headlights had ceased working due to the crash and therefore was very difficult to see.

Charging this guy for manslaughter would be the same as doing the same to me if i had been seen speeding on a main road but late, while driving at the speed limit in a residential area, accidentally hit a person who ran into the road. Just because i was speeding elsewhere does not mean that it had any effect on the actual accident. Just because he was doing something dangerous shortly before does not mean he was doing it when it happened.

[EDIT] Damn you desmo, i would have looked far more intelligent if you hadn't beaten me to the punch at pointing that out.

cleanbluesky · 25-02-2009, 15:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desmo

Having read the article again, it seems the texting had nothing to do with the accident. Typical sensational headline really. The car he hit had already crashed and was parked backwards in the outside lane of the motorway. Somebody else had already hit it and another had to swerve around it. That could have been any number of people that caused the fatal impact.

He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.

Davey_Pitch · 25-02-2009, 15:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.

Isn't that what they class texting while you're driving? If so, he has no real option other than to admit it.

Streeteh · 25-02-2009, 16:05

The point people are missing is, he got prosecuted for texting yes, but the fact a fatal car crash followed the texting is not a part of his punishment. The judge deemed that the texting, the crime he got the short sentence for, had no bearing on the fatal car crash that followed.

100s of people text while driving every day, this man just happened to be involved in an accident afterwards. The police checked his phone and found he had been texting while driving earlier and so prosecuted him for that.

He didn't kill someone because he was texting, he just had an accident and because of it was caught for texting earlier.

Feek · 25-02-2009, 20:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

He's one of the token Muslims they trot out any time they need to pacify the savages. What a scumbag

What on earth does religion have to do with this?

25-02-2009, 13:52	#1
FrostedNipple Columbian Coffee Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 87	Are they sure this person is from Labour? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/7909510.stm Ridiculous that he is a Lord. His title should be taken from him and he should be given 12 months not weeks.

25-02-2009, 13:56	#2
Desmo The Last Airbender Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Pigmopad Posts: 11,915	So what's the difference between this case and the lorry driver who got years for doing similar? I agree, his title should be used as another form of punishment. __________________

25-02-2009, 14:01	#3
Lomster Custom Title Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Fay-Lom mansion Posts: 2,787	OMG he killed someone because he was busy texting and he only gets 12weeks? That is shocking, and I agree he should have Lord taken away from him as he does not deserve it IMO. __________________

25-02-2009, 15:02	#5
Desmo The Last Airbender Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Pigmopad Posts: 11,915	Having read the article again, it seems the texting had nothing to do with the accident. Typical sensational headline really. The car he hit had already crashed and was parked backwards in the outside lane of the motorway. Somebody else had already hit it and another had to swerve around it. That could have been any number of people that caused the fatal impact. __________________

25-02-2009, 15:06	#6
Streeteh Vodka Martini Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Kingston Posts: 862	It says in the article that the texting held no sway on the crash itself; by that i presume they mean he had finished texting well before he actually crashed and killed the man. He is being charged for the use of his mobile phone while driving, not for actually causing a fatal accident as he didn't cause it. As it also said in the article two other cars barely missed the guy as he had totalled his car in the fast lane at night, i imagine his headlights had ceased working due to the crash and therefore was very difficult to see. Charging this guy for manslaughter would be the same as doing the same to me if i had been seen speeding on a main road but late, while driving at the speed limit in a residential area, accidentally hit a person who ran into the road. Just because i was speeding elsewhere does not mean that it had any effect on the actual accident. Just because he was doing something dangerous shortly before does not mean he was doing it when it happened. [EDIT] Damn you desmo, i would have looked far more intelligent if you hadn't beaten me to the punch at pointing that out. __________________ PSN & Live! ID: Streeteh

25-02-2009, 14:41	#4
cleanbluesky Abandoned Ship Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 492	He's one of the token Muslims they trot out any time they need to pacify the savages. What a scumbag

25-02-2009, 16:05	#9
Streeteh Vodka Martini Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Kingston Posts: 862	The point people are missing is, he got prosecuted for texting yes, but the fact a fatal car crash followed the texting is not a part of his punishment. The judge deemed that the texting, the crime he got the short sentence for, had no bearing on the fatal car crash that followed. 100s of people text while driving every day, this man just happened to be involved in an accident afterwards. The police checked his phone and found he had been texting while driving earlier and so prosecuted him for that. He didn't kill someone because he was texting, he just had an accident and because of it was caught for texting earlier. __________________ PSN & Live! ID: Streeteh