Thursday, March 05, 2009

Solicitor-General ignores dead man in defence of Lord Ahmed on blog

As many will know, recently, Lord Ahmed was jailed for dangerous driving, having ploughed into a stationary vehicle on a motorway which then resulted in a fatality. Lord Ahmed had been sending SMS messages prior to the collision.

Whilst the Judge in the case stressed that the dangerous driving occured prior to the accident and therefore did not cause the death, it remains the fact that Lord Ahmed did kill a man whilst driving in his car.

However the death of a man does not seem that important to the Solictor-General this morning after she appears to have been posting comments on a blog defending Lord Ahmed and essentially saying "he didn't cause death by dangerous driving he was only convicted of dangerous driving".

Isn't it good to see that the tragic death of a man doesn't even get a mention? I guess her constiuents along with neighbouring constituents from the dead man's home will be pleased to see that the Solicitor-General has so much time on her hands she feels the need to post comments on blogs defending Lord Ahmed whilst ignoring the much more important consequence of the collission.

Note: I have seen the IP address of the source of this comment and it was definitely from Parliament. Whether some poor lacky will be blamed for it, who knows!
Via: Anna Racoon


Anonymous said...

Dizzy, the post was pointing out an inaccuracy (or at least arguable inaccuracy through misrepresentation) in the original blog post. Frankly, I would respond in exactly the same terms - the inaccuracy did not concern the fact of death, merely the circumstances in which it occurred. There was therefore no need to point out that it is always unfortunate when someone dies in an accident.

Frankly I wish more politicians would stop sounding so touchy-feely and actually focus on accuracy! For once I actually defend someone from this government. Strange days...

On the other hand, I do agree that she should probably have more important things to do.

Anonymous said...

This 'Lord' was driving dangerously and killed someone. Presumably the two were linked? (Or is the solicitor general really suggesting that he was driving dangerously when texting, he then stopped driving dangerously and then killed someone! If so I think this takes NewLab DoubleSpeak to a whole new level!)

Whether he was 'texting' or not is irrelevent. He was driving dangerously and that resulted in someone being killed.

It was the CPS, controlled by this Labour government which decided to only charge 'his lordship' with dangerous driving, and not death by dangerous driving.

Is anyone surprised at this? Personally I'm surprised he got such a long sentence. 42 days wasn't it?

Whether he got locked up or not, the fact he got such a lenient charge, and such a lenient sentence is proof that it is one rule for us and one for them.

There is plenty of evidence to show that if one of us plebs who are not in government did this that we would end up locked up for a year or two for DEATH by dangerous driving.

Political influence over the CPS is where the problem lies in this story. (Plus the utter BS spouted by the 'solicitor general').


Anonymous said...

We know he didn't send a text for several miles, but was he writing one at the point of the accident?

Michael said...

Indeed, he sent one at around 2 minutes before the accident - travelling at 60 mph that's only 2 miles before the crash and not several as Vera says - perhaps he had received a text back and was reading it, and/or replying when he crashed?

Anonymous said...

Or reading one?

Barbara said...

So he was driving along dangerously, and he killed someone, but his dangerous driving didn't cause it?
What did, then?

Jonny Mac said...

More to the point, what is the Solicitor General doing posting comments on "Anna Racoone"'s blog? What next, Sec of State at DWP having a go at Guido's Friday Caption Comp?

Anonymous said...

"So he was driving along dangerously, and he killed someone, but his dangerous driving didn't cause it?
What did, then?"

The person who died had crashed their car into the barrier in the middle of the road, where it partially covered two lanes. It was dark, another car had already clipped it after the accident, before Lord Ahmed got there; yet another car had had to swerve at the last minute to avoid crashing into it. Sometimes an accident is just an accident.

Unsworth said...

I'm staggered to note that this 'Solicitor-General' has chosen to post comments - full stop. Time was when a Solicitor-General would have had sufficient dignity and perspicacity to keep their own counsel. This serves to highlight that the position is now an entirely political appointment. Our entire justice 'system' has been flushed down the toilet.

jailhouselawyer said...

Not long back I criticised Iain Dale for driving along in the outside lane of the motorway when he came across a gas cylinder in his path. He says he was doing 60mph. As he was not overtaking at the time, what was he doing in the outside lane?

The same with prisoner number XP5810 Nazir Ahmed, he was in the outside lane doing 60mph he claimed. Had he obeyed the Highway Code he would have been driving in the inside lane and not crashed into the car and not killed the driver by his actions.

If you are looking down at a text on a mobile phone, or texting, you are not having your eyes on the road ahead nor checking mirrors. Even if 60mph is to be believed, at that speed even watching where you are going, it takes time to take avoiding action and applying the brakes. Prisoner number XP5810 Nazir Ahmed, was rightly convicted of dangerous driving. In my view, he was wrongly not charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

Perhaps the gas in the cylinder has escaped and affected decision-makers? Perhaps, it was the Romans (if they built the original road) who are to blame? Perhaps the guy simply decided to commit suicide? So far, nobody has carried the can. Prisoner number XP5810 Nazir Ahmed is not "The Stig", he must take the responsibility for the death. I recall that both Jeffery Archer and Jonathan Aitken refused to accept blame for their respective conducts. I walked into a police station to report mine. Perhaps responsibility and honesty are working class morals which those upstairs appear to lack?

Anonymous said...

To me, the Solicitor General's comments above carry the ludicrous and, I'm sure, unintentional implication that Lord Ahmed's driving was safer while he was texting than when he stopped.