This has made me angry, it has everything to do with his 'status' that's for sure.

[TheDevilWearsPrimark]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7939988.stm

community work, hmmm
not the sort where you sweep up leaves in a donkey jacket for x months either

I'm shocked at his original sentence, but wasn't aware of the case at the time.

It is horrendous.

Awful.

It was an odd case though, he didn't cause the death by texting, there was some doubt at the time about the sentence.
The suspended one will have conditions attached to it though and any SINGLE breach of these takes him back inside.
HE won't reoffend.

The dead man was himself way over the limit iirc.

Not defending his actions but the crash was not caused by his texting which is what he was jailed for. Seemingly even if he had not been texting he would have had the crash. So he got 12 months for texting which maybe fair enough but is that the usual sentence?

I tend to agree with greenbib. He didn't crash into him because he was texting. I thought it was rather harsh at the time.

Really, I might google and have a look back over it. it seems very very short to have killed someone by dangerous driving.

I am suprised they even did the dangerous driving tbh.

But he wasn't sentenced for causing death by dangerous driving. The point was the sentence was for texting whilst driving which was UNCONNECTED to the crash. Because he had finished texting 12 miles previously.

The ruling said there was 'little or nothing he could have done to avoid the crash'. It was dark, the driver of the other car was over the limit and had already crashed and was stationary in the 3rd lane. Not fair to pin a 'death by dangerous driving' judgement on someone who couldn't have avoided it, no matter what he was doing further back.

Obviously the texting should be dealt with separately.

Most people get 3 points on the licence and a fine if caught using a mobile. Like otehrs have said his earlier texting was unrelated to the crash.

I missed the latter part of the article hich explains that, perhaps it wasn't on the site when I read it, the BBc do add and shiift things as they put them up.

It's sheer luck that his texting didn't kill anyone - he didn't just send one message, it was a series of messages, while driving on a motorway in the dark. He clearly didn't give a fuck about the safety of anyone on the road that night.

If he couldn't stop in time when he saw the stationery car, he was going too fast. Or has the concept of stopping distances been somehow completely abolished?

I doubt very much whether Mr A N Other motorist would have been treated with the same leniency by the Court of Appeal - or even got their case to that Court in the first place.

It's one law for the rich and well-connected, another for the poor all over again. Going to prison might well affect anyone's life, that's the whole ruddy point. But Ahmed is a Lord so figures of authority think it's terrible that one of their own could suffer the same justice that is meeted out to the common man.

darn, meted, not meeted!

He was only doing 60 and the poor other driver was pulled across two lanes.

He couldn't have avoided him.

Like others have said he wasn't texting at the time of the crash so imo he shouldn't have gone to jail at all.

Only those who have never sent a text or answered the phone while driving should be allowed to complain about this imo - which will write off most of us.

I can't believe he was punished for doing something when he stopped 12 miles before.

That's like me taking a bite out of an apple and then having an accident 12 miles later and the police arresting me for 'eating at the wheel' even if I hadn't had a bite and the apple was going brown.

He was punished for breaking the law by sending a series of text messages while driving.

Laurie, do you really mean to imply that most people have sent a text while driving? And even if, God forbid, that is the case, don't you think this sentence will have sent a message to those drivers that such behaviour is dangerous and they'd better not try it again?

I'm learning to drive atm but as a passenger have NEVER seen anyone who has given me a lift sending a text. Dh answered the phone when he first got a mobile but I set him straight.

The way it's being reported on the Daily Mail website though is that the texting was the reason for the crash which really pisses me off.

What I said was only those who hadn't sent at text OR phoned while driving should complain - I don't know anyone who hasn't done one of those things.

I think we make too much of linking 'distractions' while driving to accidents - so far I have heard of a guy pulled over for 'laughing' and being distracted, a woman (while stationary at lights) taking a sip of water and being pulled over once she'd put the water down and carried on driving, a guy pulled over for smoking while driving, a woman pulled over for singing and jiggling while driving.

I think we have accidents because we're shit drivers and the roads are too busy and not because of 'distractions'.

You could be right about many people stupidly thinking it's OK to phone while driving - I've seen plenty of that while being a passenger.

Doesn't make it right, or legal, though (unless hands-free).

the mail report did not say the texting was the reason for the crash and that it had stopped before he crashed.it is very clear that he is was prosecuted for prolonged dangerous driving.
He was sending and receiving text for 18 miles. Typing a text at 60 mph isn't just a distraction. He would have had his eyes off the road for minutes at a time and only one hands off the wheel.He certainly wouldn't have been in control if something happened while he was texting.

'Only those who have never sent a text or answered the phone while driving should be allowed to complain about this imo - which will write off most of us.'

I assume by this you have done so. I don't know anyone who regularly sends text when driving on a motorway.

I do know motorway driving is more dangerous not because of the speed but because of the complacency and the dullness of it, it's driving without having to actually do much, yet there is so much more of a risk if you take your mind of task.

The title to me is inflammatory and suggests they are linked- "Labour peer Lord Ahmed jailed for 12 weeks over text message death crash on M1".

I just don't like the way it's linked because I genuinely think anyone would have crashed into a bloke who had been drinking and had crashed into the central reservation and was parked across two lanes of traffic.

And I think all the posters on the Daily Mail website are being so vehement because they are racist.

TDWP - I have never sent a text while driving though I have made a phone call before the law was changed.

Oh I don't have the energy for this. Yes it makes a difference that he was a peer. Yes,probably a few daily mail readers are racist.

Why bring race into it anyway?

Bringing it in because I think the title of the article is the way it is because of how racist the editorial slant is at the Daily Mail.

And I'm bringing it in because there is over a 100 posts about it on the Daily Mail website, some of which I think are pretty vehement and definitely suggesting that the texting was a contributory factor to the accident.

The Daily Mail gets 200 or so posts for the most stupid of articles. It's a shite paper yes, but how they are reporting it is irrelevant to the discussion really.