Lord Achmed out of prison after only 16 days

#2
SONAR-BENDER said:
On BBC News at 10. It will damage his charity work if he were to stay inside any longer..........






Words fail me. :evil:
Naw he's needed when the next troops parade home,he's the mossie cheer-leader.........
 
#5
Scrumpy said:
The old boys network has been in action again obviously!
Maybe,maybe not

A member of the Lords intended to invite her colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch parliament, to watch his controversial movie Fitna and discuss the movie and Mr. Wilders’ opinions with him.

Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place next Thursday was cancelled.

Lord Ahmed immediately went to the Pakistani press to boast about his achievement, which he calls “a victory for the Muslim community.â€
 
#6
Mind you, whether he stayed in prison for the full term or only for 16 days I bet it was a very unpleasant shock to his system and, to be honest, I can't see what would really be achieved by keeping him there any longer.

The criminal justice system is so far up its own arse it beggars belief - vicious thugs are given community service orders while other (IMO) less socially damaging offenders receive custodial sentences.

I don't like the fact that the justice system has been kicked in the crotch yet again but I would far rather see "real" criminals being put away than lose sleep over Lord Ahmed getting an early release.
 
#7
broadside said:
Mind you, whether he stayed in prison for the full term or only for 16 days I bet it was a very unpleasant shock to his system and, to be honest, I can't see what would really be achieved by keeping him there any longer.

The criminal justice system is so far up its own arse it beggars belief - vicious thugs are given community service orders while other (IMO) less socially damaging offenders receive custodial sentences.

I don't like the fact that the justice system has been kicked in the crotch yet again but I would far rather see "real" criminals being put away than lose sleep over Lord Ahmed getting an early release.
Lord Archer did his porridge but of course, he did not kill anyone.
I bet the accident victims family are not too pleased about this decision.
 
#8
dollygee said:
broadside said:
Mind you, whether he stayed in prison for the full term or only for 16 days I bet it was a very unpleasant shock to his system and, to be honest, I can't see what would really be achieved by keeping him there any longer.

The criminal justice system is so far up its own arse it beggars belief - vicious thugs are given community service orders while other (IMO) less socially damaging offenders receive custodial sentences.

I don't like the fact that the justice system has been kicked in the crotch yet again but I would far rather see "real" criminals being put away than lose sleep over Lord Ahmed getting an early release.
Lord Archer did his porridge but of course, he did not kill anyone.
I bet the accident victims family are not too pleased about this decision.
You are probably right and I sympathise with them but Lord Ahemd was convicted of "dangerous driving" NOT "causing death by dangerous driving" which was reflected in the fact that his "full sentence" was only about 12 weeks or so IIRC.

In no sense of the word was it ever going to compensate or appease the relatives of the victims in the first place.

In the meantime, to return to the key point I was trying to make, there are vicious thugs who deliberately go out to cause pain, injury or death to innocent victims and get an equally obscene slap on the wrist.

With the best will in the world, Lord Ahmed (who I do not like or rate in any way) did not do that ... he was just a twat who should have known better and will have to live with his conscience for the rest of his life (I presume he has a conscience if only on the basis of his charitable works).
 
#9
broadside said:
dollygee said:
broadside said:
Mind you, whether he stayed in prison for the full term or only for 16 days I bet it was a very unpleasant shock to his system and, to be honest, I can't see what would really be achieved by keeping him there any longer.

The criminal justice system is so far up its own arse it beggars belief - vicious thugs are given community service orders while other (IMO) less socially damaging offenders receive custodial sentences.

I don't like the fact that the justice system has been kicked in the crotch yet again but I would far rather see "real" criminals being put away than lose sleep over Lord Ahmed getting an early release.
Lord Archer did his porridge but of course, he did not kill anyone.
I bet the accident victims family are not too pleased about this decision.
You are probably right and I sympathise with them but Lord Ahemd was convicted of "dangerous driving" NOT "causing death by dangerous driving" which was reflected in the fact that his "full sentence" was only about 12 weeks or so IIRC.

In no sense of the word was it ever going to compensate or appease the relatives of the victims in the first place.

In the meantime, to return to the key point I was trying to make, there are vicious thugs who deliberately go out to cause pain, injury or death to innocent victims and get an equally obscene slap on the wrist.

With the best will in the world, Lord Ahmed (who I do not like or rate in any way) did not do that ... he was just a twat who should have known better and will have to live with his conscience for the rest of his life (I presume he has a conscience if only on the basis of his charitable works).
Just to keep things reasonably straight, he was not convicted, he pled guilty, and as a rtesult the CPS did not pursue any other charges, not quite the same as being found not guilty of those other charges, and yes because of the way the law is worded the judge cannot take into account the consequences of the dangerous driving in decidng the sentence.

At the end of the day dangerous driving is just as much a real crime as mugging an old lady or housebreaking, and often does as much if not more damage to peoles lives as your so called real crime.

Your comments show exactly why the likes of the good lord should be more severely treated by the system and not get away as he has done will killing another person. Yes the other driver was drunk and a numpty, but that does not entitle the good lord to drive into his car and kill him.
 
#10
Peter

Did you take time to read my post?

The sentence Lord Ahmed was given was a disgrace and the fact that he has been let out early is also a disgraceful end to this episode.

I make no attempt to diminish either the severity of the offence of dangerous driving or the impact Lord Ahmed's actions have had on other people's lives.

On the other hand he was at least shown the other side of the prison wall (albeit for a ludicrous initial term of 12 weeks and subsequently released after only 16 days) which is a lot more than many people who commit very serious, intentionally planned, crimes of violence seem to get nowadays.
 
#12
broadside said:
Peter

Did you take time to read my post?

The sentence Lord Ahmed was given was a disgrace and the fact that he has been let out early is also a disgraceful end to this episode.

I make no attempt to diminish either the severity of the offence of dangerous driving or the impact Lord Ahmed's actions have had on other people's lives.

On the other hand he was at least shown the other side of the prison wall (albeit for a ludicrous initial term of 12 weeks and subsequently released after only 16 days) which is a lot more than many people who commit very serious, intentionally planned, crimes of violence seem to get nowadays.
Yes I read your posty which was why I replied, and having reread it I don't really see any need to change it. Two real pooints, as I said he only went to court on one charge because he was going to plead guilty , clearly from what his lawyer said post trial there was a deal with the CPS and the good lord was not supposed to be jailed, so I did and still do think your post let him off the hook to some extent. I suspect the judge jailed him because he though he should have been charged with Causing Death, but that any longer sentence would have generated an appeal.

Secondly just because he is a lord and wears a suit and does charitable works (so do many other crooks) does not mean he can stand apart as you suggest from the 'viscious thugs', he just as the thugs do sets his life and needs above others, hence a road death that should not have happened.

Now if you were to suggest that we take crimes against property more seriously that crimes against people I would happily agree. It would apear that in general our courts take a far more stringent view of nicking big stuff than they do ovwer human life
 
#13
Oil_Slick said:
Biker gets 6 months jail for speeding on his motorbike, Lord Achmed only does 16 days for killing someone…

Go figure. :evil:
Slick

I'm not defending the guy whatsoever but he didn't in fact kill the family but was caught driving whilst using his mobile phone which caused him to crash.
 
#14
ex_rubberdagger said:
Oil_Slick said:
Biker gets 6 months jail for speeding on his motorbike, Lord Achmed only does 16 days for killing someone…

Go figure. :evil:
Slick

I'm not defending the guy whatsoever but he didn't in fact kill the family but was caught driving whilst using his mobile phone which caused him to crash.

He's texting away furiously and ends up in a crash were people get killed… does 16 days.

I routinely drive at 125mph on Autobahns, no biggy, car's good for it. If I did 125mph here in the UK, even at 3am on an empty motorway I'm guaranteed to get 6 months in jail for dangerous driving and no chance of it getting overturned on appeal because I bung money in the charity box in the NAAFI.

Sets a bad precedent.
 
#15
LOL at you lot

Where are you mugs getting all your info from? This is how racism, scientology, christianity and islam is taken out of context. By listening to some asshole without finding out real info

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...al-after-text-messaging-behind-the-wheel.html

The man that was killed was drunk as shit, crashed his audi and passed out in the fast lane of a dual carriage way. Lord ahmed wasn't even texting at the time but sent a text two minutes before the crash.

If your a dumb enough c*nt to get into your car and crash in the fast lane at night don't expect to be alive the next morning! someone will kill you!

**Edit - It was actually on a motorway...the average speed in the fast line is 80-90. and at night there's not a lot you can do
 
#16
He 'says' he wasn't texting.
Of course, he would tell the truth wouldn't he. Being a Muslim and all that.
For me, he sould still be inside and for a lot longer too.
 

Dicky

Lantern Swinger
#17
Ahmed isn't the only one out there doing good charity work. S'pose he thought that being a do-gooder would stop him going in the nick at all. He'll probably want to wrist his memoirs now - trust you can all read Arabic. Daft cutn!!!

It seems he also found out he was no good at one-handed driving either !
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
#19
Grim_Reaper said:
He 'says' he wasn't texting.
Of course, he would tell the truth wouldn't he. Being a Muslim and all that.
For me, he sould still be inside and for a lot longer too.
GR one of the first things that happens under these circustances it that the Plod seize your mobile, or failing that do checks with your provider, times and in some cases fairly accurate positioning are gained from that so it doesn't really matter what is said by the defendant. I think that you will find that it was accepted in court that he was not texting at the time of the RTC
 
#20
janner said:
Grim_Reaper said:
He 'says' he wasn't texting.
Of course, he would tell the truth wouldn't he. Being a Muslim and all that.
For me, he sould still be inside and for a lot longer too.
GR one of the first things that happens under these circustances it that the Plod seize your mobile, or failing that do checks with your provider, times and in some cases fairly accurate positioning are gained from that so it doesn't really matter what is said by the defendant. I think that you will find that it was accepted in court that he was not texting at the time of the RTC
However you do have to read incoming texts, nothing shows up on the records for passive use :twisted:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top