Getting off lightly


by Sid (Faisal)
25th February, 2009 at 3:00 pm    

Lord Nazir Ahmed has been jailed for 12 weeks for sending and receiving text messages before he was involved in a fatal crash on the M1.

The court had heard how Lord Ahmed sent and received a series of five text messages while driving in the dark at speeds of, and above, 60mph along a 17-mile stretch of the motorway.

The judge, Mr Justice Wilkie, said that the text messaging had finished before the accident took place and was not connected to the fatal incident.

But he said that using a mobile phone while driving at speeds of 60mph was highly dangerous and only a custodial sentence would be appropriate.

Earlier this month, Lord Ahmed led a delegation to the Turkish Embassy in London to deliver thanks and support to Prime Minister Ragab Tayyeb Erdogan, for taking a courageous and principled stand against Israel.

The delegation comprised of the following members:
1. Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham
2. Dr Daud Abdullah, Muslim Council of Britain & Chair of the Coalition.
3. Mohammad Sawalha, British Muslim Initiative
4. Dr Arafat Madi, Palestinian Return Centre
5. Dilwar Hussain Khan, Secretary-General, Islamic Forum of Europe
6. Mohamed Ali, Islam Channel
7. Faisal Hanjera, Federation of Student Islamic Societies
8. Mawlana Mowdud Hasan, Da’watul Islam
9. Dr Hafiz al-Karmi, Palestinian Forum in Britain
10. Sayed Ferjani, Muslim Association of Britain

All the individuals listed above must surely be aware that had Lord Ahmed been tried in an Islamic state, rather than in England, the Hadud punishment for manslaughter for one who kills unintentionally would be the payment of blood money equivalent to the value of 100 camels.

By that token, Lord Ahmed must be counting his lucky stars.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: British Identity,Religion






67 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. platinum786 — on 25th February, 2009 at 3:08 pm  

    Apparently his text message conversation ended like 2 miles before the accident. So the texting and the accident were unrelated. I think he was senteced for the texting rather than the accident.

    Irregardless, it’s a shame that someone who was taking a growing positive role in the community was stupid enough to text whilst driving, on the motorway. It is dangerous, and on another day could have been the cause of a fatal accident.

    In a society short of public role models, he’s not helped his case.

    On a side note, apparently he doesn’t treat his mother very well…

  2. Sid — on 25th February, 2009 at 3:27 pm  

    Apparently not platinum. Lord Ahmed has said:

    “I represent views that I believe are in the best interests of our country.”

    It’s a good thing he can drive to save *his* life.

  3. Sofia — on 25th February, 2009 at 3:30 pm  

    yes there’s been some mis reporting on this, as in some news reports they said he was punished and made an example of because of the fact he was texting. He did not cause the death of the man who had had his accident prior to Lord Ahmed being at the scene…(who also had alcohol in his blood stream according to reports)
    I think ITV said that he caused the fatality…some of these journos need a kick in the backside…

  4. Sofia — on 25th February, 2009 at 3:31 pm  

    still..if lord archer is anything to go by, he may be welcomed back without too many problems after his incarceration.

  5. platinum786 — on 25th February, 2009 at 4:03 pm  

    Sid… say what? I read the article, didn’t quite get your point.

  6. Riz Din — on 25th February, 2009 at 4:30 pm  

    From the Guardian: “The last message was sent two minutes and 1.86 miles before the Jaguar smashed into an Audi that had clipped the central barrier shortly beforehand and ended up facing the wrong way in the outside lane. Its driver, Martyn Gombar, 28, a Slovakian father of two living in Manchester, who had been drinking, was trying to retrieve his own mobile phone at the time of the collision.”

    I don’t understand. Is 12 weeks the sentence for using a mobile or sending a text? Seems a bit harsh, especially when enforcement is generally extremely bad.

    Also, why don’t mobiles have a ‘driving button’ that you hit when you are on the road and which then responds to callers with an automated message saying ‘X is currently driving’. When it comes to motorway driving, the GPS could pick up the movement and switch to this message automatically. Surely a simple technology that would remove the incentive to answer a ringing phone (it doesn’t have to ring). I will sell this idea to anyone for 50p.

  7. Tim Worstall — on 25th February, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

    “kills unintentionally would be the payment of blood money equivalent to the value of 100 camels.

    By that token, Lord Ahmed must be counting his lucky stars.”

    ?? Why?

    Looking quickly I see that a camel might cost $50 or so. I’m sure Ahmed is a rich enough man (for he is indeed rich) that he would prefer a $5,000 fine to 6 weeks in jail and 6 weeks on licence.

  8. platinum786 — on 25th February, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

    I will sell his idea, rephrased for 49p.

  9. Sid — on 25th February, 2009 at 4:52 pm  

    Tim

    By my reckoning, a good Saudi camel is worth 5 to 7 thousand US dollars. If we take the median, that would be $6,000 per camel. And a total blood money amount of $600,000.

    Lord Ahmed is a rich man, but that even that fine would surely hurt.

  10. Riz Din — on 25th February, 2009 at 5:02 pm  

    Damn, I’m in a price war. Platinum786, I realise the eventual price will go down to zero here so I will let you sell the idea for 49p. See, I’m thinking about total gains to society, not to myself! How low do you feel now ; )

    Re the camels – it’s a good thing Ahmad wouldn’t have to deliver on the underlying. That would have created the UK’s greatest ever squeeze in the camel market.

  11. fug — on 25th February, 2009 at 5:04 pm  

    Your idiocy and spastication amplify with each and every day.

    You dont like his politics, because he doesn’t suck up to zionised jews like you do, with face-eating effect. Then in your twisted secularist spastication you extrapolate a hudd punishment. And then extrapolate what you think the legal positions are in the heads of a group of randoms.

    you are truly poor.

  12. Sid — on 25th February, 2009 at 5:07 pm  

    Then in your twisted secularist spastication you extrapolate a hudd punishment.

    What is the hudud punishment for Manslaughter then, fugtard?

  13. Rumbold — on 25th February, 2009 at 5:36 pm  

    Fug:

    So you think dangerous driving is okay then, provided that it is done by someone who agrees with you? Furthermore, you then attack anyone who dares criticise Lord Ahmed, and top it off by blaming things on the Jews.

    I don’t know what Refresh sees in you. You are the Eboue to Refresh’s Wenger.

  14. Katy Newton — on 25th February, 2009 at 5:53 pm  

    because he doesn’t suck up to zionised jews like you do

    You really are a nasty, pointless piece of work.

  15. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:00 pm  

    ‘I don’t know what Refresh sees in you.’

    Linguistic skills.

    Who is Eboue and Wenger, or shouldn’t I ask?

  16. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:05 pm  

    Fug, Rumbold is right. Sid’s contorted post should not be an excuse.

  17. Sid — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:07 pm  

    Linguistic skills? I thought you rate him because he’s a pathological bigot and says all the things you’d love to.

  18. Katy Newton — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:14 pm  

    Refresh, I know that you are a very nice man but I really find this constant defence of fug on your part sickening.

  19. chairwoman — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:17 pm  

    still..if lord archer is anything to go by, he may be welcomed back without too many problems after his incarceration.

    The Government is currently preparing legislation which will ‘un-enoble’ any member of the House of Lords who goes, or has been, in prison having been found guilty.

    And so we say ‘farewell’ to Lords Archer, Ahmed, et al.

  20. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:17 pm  

    Sid, you thought wrong.

    The problem is some of your posts leave all these loose ends for everyone to pick at. How we got from Ahmed getting 12 weeks for dangerous driving straight into Erdogan and therefore Israel and a full list of people attending.

    Why don’t you unpack that and explain what it is you are trying to do?

    Some of your posts verge on brilliance, and others are there to just poke and provoke. As this one is. Like little landmines. And then you are surprised that someone like Fug responds as he does.

    You are smart, but often overreach unnecessarily. And then we end up with these little spats. And with it you get so personal that it makes you gag.

    If I want to say something I will say it myself, as I have always done.

  21. chairwoman — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:22 pm  

    because he doesn’t suck up to zionised jews like you do

    Fug – Wash your mouth out!

    Refresh – I am astonished that you can countenance, let alone support this bigot.

  22. Sid — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:22 pm  

    Refresh

    the problem is some of your posts leave all these loose ends for everyone to pick at. How we got from Ahmed getting 12 weeks for dangerous driving straight into Erdogan and therefore Israel and a full list of people attending.

    But I notice there were no loose ends to pick at by “everyone” when I wrote an article on Christian Evangelism.

    Are you sure it’s loose ends that was a problem for fug or because this article is critical of Lord Ahmed and his politics?

    I’m no longer surprised by your filibustering and your skewed judgements. But do you actually think anyone is justified to fire off a totally unrelated (or even related) racist comment in relation to any article written on this blog?

    Frankly I am tired of you blaming *me* whenreaders can’t refrain from using racist and antisemitic language when they feel “provoked” by my articles.

  23. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:23 pm  

    Katy, there are many ways to deal with people you don’t agree with. I usually find his use of language amusing – spastication was the first that caught my eye. There are others.

  24. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:25 pm  

    Chairwoman, there is no support for it. Not from me.

  25. Leon — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:26 pm  

    Fug, any more of that shit and you’re posts wont survive the hour.

    The Government is currently preparing legislation which will ‘un-enoble’ any member of the House of Lords who goes, or has been, in prison having been found guilty.

    Didn’t know that, sounds like great news. All we have to do now is catch them all out for cash for access and we’ll have HoL reform almost overnight! :D

  26. Sid — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:29 pm  

    And so we say ‘farewell’ to Lords Archer, Ahmed, et al.

    I’ll drink to that!

  27. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:32 pm  

    Sid, I did think your article on Christian Evangelism was excellent. It did a very good job of putting everything in perspective from all sides.

    I don’t know what the problem was for fug, you will have to ask him about that.

    As far as I was concerned I had no interest in picking up the second half of what you were trying to say. For a very simple reason. I long lost interest in those issues. But I did make a mental note of the unnecessary switch.

    You brought in Erdogan’s response to Peres at Davos, you brought in Israel for a reason. You gave a full list of attendees. What were you trying to achieve?

  28. Ravi Naik — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:33 pm  

    And so we say ‘farewell’ to Lords Archer, Ahmed, et al.

    I’ll drink to that!

    Will you drink with your drinking buddies? :)

  29. Leon — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:36 pm  

    Heh heh.

  30. Sid — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:36 pm  

    I am showing you in one post Lord Ahmed’s politics, political associations, fellow travellers and their hankering for an Islamic State and the ambiguities thereof.

    Now, you may think that is too much to work with. But I don’t see how you can justify a racist comment as a form of textual criticism of it. But I’m sure you can.

  31. Ravi Naik — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:37 pm  

    The Quilliam Foundation says it disagrees with the ban, but it doesn’t represent the masses and it doesn’t have the support of the majority of the Muslim community. I represent views that I believe are in the best interests of our country.

    What a conceited bastard this guy is. Another self-appointed voice of Muslims.

  32. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:40 pm  

    Sid, nothing to explain. I didn’t justify it as you well know.

    I stumble across a mention of my name and make lighthearted two-word response (‘Linguistic skills’, I believe), and that passes for justification?

    Untangle yourself.

  33. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:41 pm  

    ‘I am showing you in one post Lord Ahmed’s politics, political associations, fellow travellers and their hankering for an Islamic State and the ambiguities thereof.’

    Clearly it doesn’t work. Unravel it, break it into three or so and have a proper debate without personalising it, and it will fly.

  34. Sid — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:44 pm  

    Sid, nothing to explain. I didn’t justify it as you well know.

    Are you sure? You said this in #20

    Like little landmines. And then you are surprised that someone like Fug responds as he does.

    You’re not surprised?

  35. Sid — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:48 pm  

    Clearly it doesn’t work. Unravel it, break it into three or so and have a proper debate without personalising it, and it will fly.

    We are having a debate, but you’re the one who has personalised it.

  36. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:50 pm  

    Sid, Sid, Sid

    Lets not scrape barrels.

    ‘You’re not surprised?’

    Clearly not. So deal with fug. Explain to him rationally what the problem is with it. Its the best way to do these things.

  37. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:51 pm  

    OK Sid. I personalised it. Sorry.

    Let normal service resume.

  38. Leon — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:51 pm  

    Hang a second, Fug’s language let alone tone are unacceptable, let’s not act like somehow he’s a little child that knows not what he’s done…

  39. Ravi Naik — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:55 pm  

    Explain to him rationally what the problem is with it.

    Refresh, stop pretending that ‘fug’ is a rational individual, whose blatant anti-semitism is the result of a “misunderstanding”.

  40. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 6:55 pm  

    Leon, its nothing to do with treating him like a child. Its to do with engaging people. Engage him and lets see what he has to say.

  41. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 7:08 pm  

    Fug, are you anti-semitic?

  42. Leon — on 25th February, 2009 at 7:17 pm  

    I’m sorry but he’s not going to get away with you defending his language and tone on the basis that somehow how Sid was provocative.

  43. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 7:21 pm  

    Leon, so what are you proposing?

  44. Don — on 25th February, 2009 at 7:28 pm  

    Refresh,

    Fug may amuse you, but he’s crapping on the carpet. It ain’t cute.

  45. Don — on 25th February, 2009 at 7:36 pm  

    @ CW #19

    Mandatory drug tests, both Houses.

  46. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 7:40 pm  

    Don
    You are right.

    I should say, he did amuse me. His literary skills have clearly reached their limit. And I do find the term ‘zionised jews’ offensive.

    Mea culpa.

  47. Rumbold — on 25th February, 2009 at 7:48 pm  

    Refresh:

    Eboue is a player for Arsenal who is not very good, but who is a first team regular, a decision only explicable to Arsene Wenger.

  48. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 7:59 pm  

    I take it you are talking football?

  49. Bert Rustle — on 25th February, 2009 at 8:42 pm  

    A commenter on EUReferendum mentioned that if Lord Ahmed had received the last text rather than having sent it then he may have been reading it as he approached the other vehicle.

    Presumably reading a text whilst driving at 60+mph would take rather longer than it would whilst sitting at a desk.

  50. Rumbold — on 25th February, 2009 at 9:00 pm  

    Yup Refresh.

  51. thabet — on 25th February, 2009 at 9:10 pm  

    “Who is Eboue and Wenger, or shouldn’t I ask?”

    A comedy double act who have ruined our season.

  52. Ashik — on 25th February, 2009 at 9:29 pm  

    Dangerous driving, advocacy for Palestinian rights, list of Muslim individuals in a delegation and Islamic laws….what do these things all have in common….

    Oh, yes, the author is Sid. No need to explain lol

    At least this time we should be thankful Sid isn’t using a far-right website to show Muslims in a bad light.

    Somehow I doubt that a similar article would have been written had a Jewish Lord and diehard Israel supporter from the Board of Deputies been driving dangerously. A tribute to that Lord might well have appeared here. [Sigh] So predictable.

  53. ashik — on 25th February, 2009 at 9:52 pm  

    As I read this I wanderf what dangerous driving, advocacy for Palestinian causes, a list of Muslim delegates and Islamic Sharia had in common….

    Then I saw Sid’s name and it all became clear lol

    At least Sid is not linking to a far right anti Muslim article this time.

    One wonders if a Jewish Lord member of the Board of Deputies whose Pro-Israel stance Sid prefers was found guilty whether that would haoe been subject of an article.

  54. ashik — on 25th February, 2009 at 9:58 pm  

    Actually, trivial use of this tragic incident for ideological point scoring by Sid detracts from the serious nature of Lord Ahmed’s use of a mobile phone while driving. Every driver owes a duty of care to fellow road users and Lord Ahmed was clearly found wanting here. This could happen to any one of us! The One good to come out of this is the publicity against mobile usage while at the controls of a car.

    In all the political fallout, let’s not forget the victim and his family. I heard in the news they thought 12 weeks was inappropriate. I can’t disagree there.

  55. Refresh — on 25th February, 2009 at 10:48 pm  

    Sid,

    To broaden the discussion.

    I believe Erdogan had made the best contribution at Davos, by taking Peres to task. It underlined how far Israel had gone with its escapade in Gaza, particularly given Turkey is the closest ally Israel has in the region. I only wish we had others, including Europeans who would do the same.

    We have been watching Peres preside over the decimation of the two-state solution.

    We should cover this topic first and then move on to the other points you make in your post.

  56. Ravi Naik — on 26th February, 2009 at 12:40 am  

    This could happen to any one of us! The One good to come out of this is the publicity against mobile usage while at the controls of a car.

    You mean, any of us could be killed by a reckless driver like Lord Ahmed… indeed.

    In all the political fallout, let’s not forget the victim and his family. I heard in the news they thought 12 weeks was inappropriate. I can’t disagree there.

    Absolutely right.

  57. platinum786 — on 26th February, 2009 at 9:33 am  

    Sid is such a wind up merchant. It’s excellent.

    I reckon Sid doesn’t like Lord Ahmed, Sid also knows Pakistani’s tend to back their own horse, however lame it may be.

    Now all Sid did was leave a few general comments, which would have some people tripping over themselves, they duly obliged.

    The average reader is now reading this thinking, “look at the paranoid Paki’s trying to justify one of their own running a guy over and blaming jews”.

    Either that or I have had too much sugar in my tea.

  58. Sid — on 26th February, 2009 at 10:14 am  

    This could happen to any one of us! The One good to come out of this is the publicity against mobile usage while at the controls of a car.

    Well not any of us.

    It turns out that the Blood Money value of 100 camels only applies if the victims are “free Muslims”. I’m not sure what the blood money value is if the victim is a kaafir. ;-)

    Perhaps would-be scholars such as Faisal Hanjera of FOSIS or Mawlana Mowdud Hasan of Da’watul Islam could clarify.

  59. Cabalamat — on 26th February, 2009 at 10:35 am  

    I think he should be stripped of his peerage.

    Because anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to send text messages while driving along a motorway clearly has no sense whatsoever and is therefore unfit to make decisions relating to the weightiest affairs of this country.

  60. n00bi3 — on 26th February, 2009 at 6:00 pm  

    His last text/received was sent 1.86 miles before the crash. He was travelling roughly at 60 miles per hour. Therefore a whole 1 minutes and 50 odd seconds of ‘normal’ driving before the accident.

    Based on these ‘facts’ that have come to light…we can rule out him texting/whilst driving being the cause of the offence. Therefore getting 12 weeks for texting is pretty harsh for an offence that is very poorly policed or brought to trial. We can only speculate on if he was still reading/composing a message seconds prior to the incident.

    So in that context, it is not getting off lightly…

    A few more points to note; I agree with Refresh that even attempting to link his politics to this incident is very lax.

    Also, what is wrong with using ‘zionised jew?’ How is that racist? It’s the same as saying ‘facist jihadi pakistani’ is that racist too? Try reason with me…and don’t even attempt I am trying to understand.

  61. Refresh — on 26th February, 2009 at 8:27 pm  

    Sid, how many camels should each of the bereaved families in Gaza expect from Peres’ stable?

  62. Don — on 26th February, 2009 at 11:36 pm  

    Also, what is wrong with using ‘zionised jew?’ How is that racist? It’s the same as saying ‘facist jihadi pakistani’ is that racist too?

    Has somebody used that term here? I must have missed it. If so, I hope they established that the adjectives were well evidenced and the noun relevant. Otherwise they would be merely being abusive and bigoted.

  63. Refresh — on 27th February, 2009 at 1:57 am  

    Sid, what was wrong with a delegation of muslims congratulating Erdogan for his slapping down of Peres at Davos?

    I cheered when I saw the clip on the Guardian website, and even more when I saw almost all of it on youtube.

    I would have cheered a lot more if it had been Gordon Brown, or even Milliband.

  64. Refresh — on 27th February, 2009 at 2:09 am  

    Here is the clip, with text and translation

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrbQsHkVQ_4

    I believe Peres should be stripped of his Nobel Peace prize.

  65. Refresh — on 27th February, 2009 at 2:45 am  

    ‘In an interview with a Norwegian newspaper, committee members said they regretted that Mr Peres’ prize could not be recalled because, as a member of the Israeli cabinet, he had not acted to prevent Israel’s re-occupation of Palestinian territory.

    One member said Mr Peres had not lived up to the ideals he expressed when he accepted the prize.’

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1912953.stm

  66. Imran Khan — on 27th February, 2009 at 7:54 pm  

    Sid – If you actually read the record of events then you’ll see that the events are not as portrayed by the right wing media.

    The deceased driver broke down at night in the fast lane. Left his car and went to the hard shoulder.

    His car was narrowly avoided by one car and clipped by another car.

    From this we can see that the car was in a dangerous position and other road users were having trouble avoiding it.

    Lord Ahmed had stopped txt’ing – which wasn’t a good thing to do whilst driving. However many people do it so those egging on a harsher punsihment should remember that.

    The deceased returned to his car to collect his phone. The advice when broken down to to stay away even from the hard shoulder. Lord Ahmed hit the car.

    It is a tragic set of events and asking for a harsher sentence is not correct.

    The court accepted that the txting though not the right thing to do did not play a dramatic part in the accident. So are you saying you know more than the Judge who deals with such cases on a regular basis?

    Are you saying he got off lightly because you don’t like him?

    If the deceased hadn’t gone back to get their phone then this would have been a road accident and most likely a ban and a fine for Lord Ahmed.

    The reason Lord Ahmed’s case is coming under pressure from the right wing press is for two reasons:

    1. Because he spoke out against Israel recently.

    2. Because he spoke out against Geert Wilders and the right wing love anyone who speaks out against Islam and Musliums and vilifies those who defend it.

    So looking at the circumstances one can see that the Judge got it about right.

    Also look at the contrast those same people and papers who spoke so highly of free speech now vilify the Bishop who denied the Holocaust but what about their stand on the principle of free speech?

    Quite a few times a month on my way to work I have to swerve to avoid people using mobile phones if I got killed do you think the same press would be asking for an increase in sentence for a dead Muslim? Would you?

    I doubt it. So why the other way round is there such hysteria? The Judge got it right and those asking for more do so because of other agendas and nothing else.

    Its interesting those also leading the charge for him to be stripped of his title do not ask for it to be applied to people who caused far greater harm to more people. Because they were darlings of the right. How convinient.

    Above all this case showed the law works well and that the law didn’t listen to the hysteria of the media and made an informed decision.

    Also strange how the right wing media whilst calling for Ahmed to be practically hung out to dry doesn’t make the same call when it is caught breaking the law frequently. Where was the media outrage at the fabricated Sun stories which have been exposed recently?

    Where was the media outrage when one of their own was convicted of swindling?

  67. Refresh — on 28th February, 2009 at 1:57 am  

    Imran, I was hoping to cover that last.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.