Lord Ahmed certainly has an army of supporters. Following my piece this morning on my blog that this mendacious government couldn’t possibly be thinking of reviewing his sentence, the Solicitor-General has kindly found time in her busy work load of asking the Court of Appeal to review the sentence of Phillipa Curtis, jailed for 21 months after being found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving whilst texting, to drop into my humble blog and jump to Lord Ahmed’s defence.

Vera Baird 03.04.09 at 8:03 pm

the judge made clear, contrary to what you say, the texting had stopped several miles before the crash and played no part in the death. Hence he was not charged with causing death while dangerous driving like ms Curtis but with dangerous driving only. Nobody should text while driving.

Is she trying to say that he wasn’t distracted by his texting and was paying full attention when he killed young Mr Gombar. I had charitably assumed that he was distracted by his texting.

Perhaps the Solicitor-General dropping into blogs to reiterate past defences for ordinary folk is a common occurrence, I’m too new at this blogging lark to know; or perhaps Lord Ahmed has powerful supporters in high places. I’m sure that other bloggers will let me know.

Naturally I have checked out the IP address and e-mail address as being genuine.

Coco March 9, 2009 at 20:31

Saul ………………You will like Iain Dale. He’s on your right in the
blogroll.
iaindale.blogspot.com

Coco March 9, 2009 at 20:21

I wish she would come along and join in again though! It was such a comfort
to know that she found it so interesting. Out of all the millions of websites
in the World …………. She chose ours! Lovely!

I bet she secretly wants to come back. Please come back Vera. We will be
really friendly with you. I solemnly promise. Come and add the balance we
need! Otherwise I will still be thinking that Lordy was given
special
treatment.

Saul March 9, 2009 at 18:50

Matt, I think the point was that “Our Vera” herself chose to pass comment.
I could understand one of her underlings doing it in her departments name, but
the venerable one herself. I don’t think many people would warrant the hands
on approach she gave to the good Lord.

Call me old fashioned, but I use the checking back method, on posts I have
commented on.

P.S. Who is Iaindale ?

Matt March 9, 2009
at 18:09

Sorry: typo or editing problem. Technorati tag like this:
iaindale

Matt March 9, 2009
at 18:07

No – just saying that it is one easy way to do it. If I was a Minister’s
Press Officer or Assistant it would be one of the first things I would do.

One definition of “sad” is to have a Google alert set up on your own
name.

Yes, I do.

You used to be able to get Iain the Dale’s attention by dropping in a
technorati tag like this: <a href=”iaindale, but I
think most people use Google Alerts now instead.

Saul March 7, 2009 at 15:47

Are you saying Our Vera uses google alerts to notify her of specific posts
in blogs so she can drop in and pass comments on them?

And no, I didn’t know that.

Matt
Wardman March 7, 2009 at 15:15

Anna>Is she trying to say that he wasn

Coco March 6, 2009 at 18:20

Delphius ……………… ”I

Delphius1 March 6,
2009 at 18:13

Hat tip to OH:

Seems others are now picking up on my points:

http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70016&Itemid=2

“Glasgow MP Muhammad Sarwar in his address said Lord Nazir has been
sentenced on account of dangerous driving and no death charge has been
levelled against him….

….Sarwar said according to the legal experts the custodial sentence awarded
to Lord Ahmed was excessive and that he has valid grounds to appeal against
the verdict. ”

I’ll refrain from comment lest I incriminate myself in some way.

Coco March 5, 2009 at 18:53

Blink said …………………. ”Consider Mandelson, the unelected PM of the
UK.”
***************************************************

I think this is one of the most pertinent comments of the day!

Mandy’s re-entry was so insidious ………………… apart from the bright pink jumper
he was wearing whn he arrived at Downing Street.

I know of another bloke who crept in through the back door one day. I
believe Poland has never really recovered from it all.

Adrian P
March 5, 2009 at 14:04

General election ? don’t be silly, we will have the civil contingencies
bill brought in by another False flag operation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HSKvaFC39Q

John March 5, 2009 at 12:09

As to Vera Baird’s point about having stopped texting several miles
earlier, note the TRL research cited below that:

“Drivers using the legal alternative to hand-held mobiles [hands free sets]
are 30 per cent slower to react than those slightly over the limit, tests
found.

And for up to ten minutes after a conversation their reflexes remain
dulled , according to the Transport Research Laboratory.”

One could reasonably infer the same may happen with texting, a kind of
conversation.

So depending on the speed at which the good Lord was travelling, and
possibly the nature of the texts (which perhaps should be released into the
public domain), the lack of texting at the time may be a red herring.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1157465/Hands-free-mobile-phones-dangerous-drink-driving.html

Nabidana March 5, 2009 at 12:02

So the message here is to text a bit on the motorway, then use your full
concentration to kill someone. Very clear.

Zak March 5, 2009 at 12:01

That doesn’t take into account reaction time, brake application time or
physical forces affecting the effectiveness of the individual brakes
(new/old). However I think a more productive approach would be training Lords
to text and drive at the same time thus negating the possibility of further
accidents.

Blink March 5, 2009 at 11:58

As I’ve suggested, you cannot rationalize with this government and its
friendly elites in law and the media. Despite all the evidence – “we have ways
fo doing things” – is the motto of them all. Consider David Kelly. Consider
BAE systems. Consider Mandelson, the unelected PM of the UK.

Saul March 5, 2009 at 11:54

I wonder if Our Vera (that’s how I think of her now) will be dropping in
today for a chat. It does so raise the tone when the high and mighty drop in.
Unless of course she is scouring the net looking for wrongs to right, re the
poor downtrodden who have no voice. How altruistic of her.

Spartan March 5, 2009 at 11:08

An X Type Jag has a stopping distance 60-0 mph of 120 ft (Car Magazines
road tests) … about third of a length of a football pitch. Weather and
visibility good at time of accident.

… and he didn’t see Audi to stop in time? … yeah right!

Over to you, Solicitor General.

Mark March 5, 2009 at 10:59

I’d have thought that the evidence might reveal a little more or the truth
behind the texting. For instance, over the sequence of texts, what was the
interval between them in time/distance (perhaps it was about 2 minutes/2
miles, the interval since the “last” text sent)? What was the content of the
texts, in particular the “final” one – did it indicate a sign-off from the
conversation? Are there Muslim Masons, or does an army of 10,000 obviate the
need for all that?

William
March 5, 2009 at 10:55

I thought Allah was meant to watch over the faithful at all times.

Was he having a tea break or is the good lord unfaithful? I think we should
be told.

Saul March 5, 2009 at 10:32

‘allo Vera, how are you doing this morning.

Ch March 5, 2009 at 10:00

Saul 03.05.09 at 12:28 am
I

Delphius1 March 5,
2009 at 09:56

So, putting aside the fact Lord Ahmed killed someone in a crash, because it
really was an accident and in no way related to his previous texting
activities: can the Solicitor General square the inconsistencies in Lord
Ahmend’s case?

If he was prosecuted for the texting while driving only, then thats just a
fixed penalty offence. Bit of a fine, points on the licence, slap on the wrist
don’t do it again.

So why would he be jailed if the accident was unavoidable and in no way his
fault?

One can only assume he was jailed because the crash was considered by the
court to be avoidable and therefore Lord Ahmed had in some way contributed to
the occurrence of the crash.

How does this square with the motorcyclist jailed for 6 months this week
for riding at 122mph with his son on the back? No-one was killed, although he
did take essessive risks and broke the law speeding. But Lord Ahmed took
excessive risks texting and also broke the law whilst doing so.

So exactly what is the difference? The amount of funds available for a
defence? Quality of counsel? Is that what people call justice? I know what I
call it…..

Blink March 5, 2009 at 08:22

It is blatantly obvious that this government are above the laws that
regulate the rest of us. They must presumably believe that they are the true
moral guardians and examples to us all. Their thieving, their murder, their
corruption is truly outstanding. Their debasing of our democracy is becoming
more self-evident with each passing moment. It is more representative of East
Germany about 40 years ago. It is an authoritarian, anti-democratic neo-nazi
cabal that needs to be removed from office as soon as possible. We can just
hope that there is a general election soon when we, the people, can finally
pass judgement on this crowd of trough swilling pigs.

Bill March 5, 2009 at 06:57

He should be doing five years.

Karen March 5, 2009 at 04:49

I haven’t been following this case – but if he killed someone & they
were in a stationary vehicle – 18 days seems unbelievably lenient.

Anna Raccoon
March 5, 2009 at 04:58

Blimey Karen, did you wet the bed, or have you not been there yet?

Coco March 5, 2009 at 01:40

Obama has just rung! He wishes us lots of love …………… and has chosen me to
write to you all on his behalf.

Gordie Bruney hasn’t got back to me yet ………………. He said to just quote from
Mandy for now ……………… or the Millies until he sorts himself out.

Gordie wants to know if he sounded like he was begging the US to stay
friends with us when he did his speech today.

He said he just hopes that he didn’t sound as if he was sh*tting his pants
about the US possibly abandoning us to Europe …………………

What could I say?

Coco March 5, 2009 at 01:33

I think she will be a bundle of fun! I hope we have not upset her. I will
be very sorry if she doesn’t come back.

Saul March 5, 2009 at 00:59

Bairdwatch hosted by Blog Oddie, coming to a screen near you soon.

ale bro March 5, 2009 at 00:51

lord ahmed could have been texting when he crashed but the text will not
show up on the telephone record as it was never sent

Saul March 5, 2009 at 00:36

Maybe they are getting twitchy? Hence the Baird Watching!

Coco March 5, 2009 at 00:30

Saul! I rang her up when I knew she was on a coffee-break.

Saul March 5, 2009 at 00:28

I’m still troubled as to how she became aware of this in the first place.
Is there some kind of “blogwatchdog” to alert the powers that be?

Coco March 5, 2009 at 00:27

Saul!!! Do you mean beady eyes are on all of us or just Anna Raccoon? If
they are watchig me I will have to have my roots done and get a nail
appointment this week.

I don’t want my roots being picked up by satellite …………. and having a
horrid mug-shot on my police file that goes up on News At Ten. I want to look
polished.

Is it true that the police don’t even give you time to comb your hair and
put your make-up on when they force your front door off its hinges and barge
into your bedroom at 6am in the morning when we are supposed to be in the
delta stage of sleep? Is it true that they always carry automatic weapons when
they go into the homes of subversive types?

janes March 5, 2009 at 00:05

Mike – I believe the Solicitor General asked the Court of Appeal to rule on
whether the sentence was unduly lenient.

Coco March 5, 2009 at 00:05

Arthur Dent says: ……..”It would be interesting if the relatives of the
deceased were to bring a civil action

Saul March 5, 2009 at 00:01

Apparently lots of people in high places already have their beady eyes on
you.

Coco March 5, 2009 at 00:00

Saul 03.04.09 at 11:17 pm

More to the point, how did the august solictor general come across this
post.
******************************************************************
It’s
my fault! We go back years. I invited her on last week. Really lovely person.
I think the site will be more interesting to have the enemy on the inside. My
ethereal mate Stalin always said the same thing.

mike March 4, 2009 at 23:59

Maybe the Solicitor General requested a review of Ms Curtis’s sentence as
it was obviously excessive when compared to Lord Ahmed, and she couldn’t let
it appear that Ahmed received favourable treatment.

Coco March 4, 2009 at 23:56

When I am old enough to vote I am going to acquaint myself with lots and
lots of people in high places within the Government of the day.

And I will befriend lots and lots of lawyers like Caplan …………….

Way to go!

Gloria Smudd
March 4, 2009 at 23:35

Perhaps Lord Ahmed’s 6 weeks’ /18 days’ (whichever it turns out to be)
detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure will be really, really, really,
gruesomely, horridly ghastly, an ordeal of grimness beyond our wildest
imaginations, so 6 weeks or 18 days would be quite enough to teach him a very
strong lesson and he will never text while driving again, whereas Ms Philippa
Curtis might expect to spend her 21 months of porridge chatting happily with
lovely people, crocheting a few doilies, snoozing in her own suite of cells
and generally getting off lightly.

janes March 4, 2009 at 23:31

And if it was indeed the solicitor general her eye is now upon us. Beware.
Take cover. But don’t panic, she’ll probably leave the blog on a train or in a
taxi so they’ll never find us again.

Saul March 4, 2009 at 23:17

More to the point, how did the august solictor general come across this
post. Does she spend the tax payers money surfing the net for stories to
comment on? Or was she directed here from some shadowy dept to have a butchers
at it.

Anna Raccoon
March 4, 2009 at 23:30

Why now Masser Saul, don’t you know Ms Raccoon is world famous?

Arthur Dent March 4, 2009 at 23:15

With the greatest respect, the learned judge did not and indeed could not
know whether the Noble Lord was or was not texting at the time of the crash.
What was ascertained was that he was not sending a text at that time. He could
have been reading a text that had arrived previously or indeed composing a
reply to such a message. In view of his previous activity a few minutes before
hand and the fact that he hit a stationary object which others had largely
avoided the balance of probabilities suggests that he was indeed distracted by
his texting activity. But of course that is “balance of probabilities” and not
“beyond reasonable doubt”.

It would be interesting if the relatives of the deceased were to bring a
civil action …..

Gloria Smudd
March 4, 2009 at 23:10

I am resisting arriving at the conclusion that there are such things as
“Government-Goggles”; a bit like beer-goggles but Gov-Gogs seem to make an
obvious double-standard evaporate.

Coco March 4, 2009 at 23:04

Hey guys! I am just off to do a bit of aqua-planing on the motorway whilst
its really slippy and wet.

If I kill any truckers or families returning from the cinema …………… would
one of you contact this Lordy Ahmedear’s brief for me?

Cheers!

Coco March 4, 2009 at 22:59

Hi Pat! ………………. ”It would appear from the solicitor generals comments that
he should have been charged with two counts of dangerous driving, one causing
death. Is it an increase in sentance that is being
sought?”
**********************************************************
Speaking
from a personal point of view and having seen the victims cousins on the telly
…………………… I would suggest a much much stronger sentence.

Send him to work at a call-centre for the Royal Bank of Scotland for three
years.! That should cure him of his need to pick up a phone! phone.

Coco March 4, 2009 at 22:44

Anna Raccoon says: ”.but then as Ms Baird has pointed out – Lord Ahmed had
stopped texting before he had the accident

janes March 4, 2009 at 22:41

So the lord had apparently stopped texting before the accident. But that
only means he hadn’t sent or received a text immediately beforehand, he could
easily have been composing one though, just didn’t get to send it while he was
busy (accidently) killing someone.

Coco March 4, 2009 at 22:33

Saul 03.04.09 at 10:00 pm

Pat March 4, 2009 at 22:28

So as I understand it, the Noble Lord was definitely texting on the
motorway which most of us would regard as dangerous, but fortunately didn’t
have an accident. Shortly afterwards he failed to spot a stationary vehicle,
hence indicating either that he was going too fast to stop in the distance he
could see to be clear (which is dangerous), or that his attention was
elsewhere (careless at least) and on this second occasion he killed someone.
It would appear from the solicitor generals comments that he should have been
charged with two counts of dangerous driving, one causing death. Is it an
increase in sentance that is being sought?

Anna Raccoon
March 4, 2009 at 22:32

An increase in Ms Curtis’s sentence is being considered, but there does
not appear to be any suggestion that Lord Ahmed’s (potentially) 18 days was
excessively lenient………..but then as Ms Baird has pointed out – Lord Ahmed
had stopped texting before he had the accident…….

Coco March 4, 2009 at 22:06

One night ……………….. three of my children were munched on by Aliens because I
was having something to eat with my friends and had left the kids alone in
darkened rooms.

If! ………………… And I say ‘if’ the police come around my house to investigate
with Eddie and Keela and they find …………. things. Will I get this kind of help
from on high as well please?

I hope so. Being a British Subject and all that. I really hope so.

Saul March 4, 2009 at 22:00

….”with dangerous driving only”…

Is that supposed to lessen the offence? Someone died from the result of
that admitted dangerous driving.

Gloria Smudd
March 4, 2009 at 21:57

Outside Pacitto’s, was it? It’s the very devil to park there when you want
a nice cornet.

Saul March 4, 2009 at 21:44

Perhaps she can sort out the parking ticket I got in Redcar last week.