One Law for New Labour - Craig Murray

Texting death crash peer jailed for 12 weeks and banned for one year

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7909510.stm

Texting death crash woman jailed for 21 months and banned for three years

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm

Note that in neither case is it true – contrary to propaganda – that the texting was several minutes before the crash. In the case of the woman, the prosecution is appealing because the sentence was too lenient!

With thanks to Alaric.

Liked this article? Please share using the links below. Then View All Latest Posts

Tweet
Share 0
Reddit
Pocket
LinkedIn 0
Email

13 thoughts on “One Law for New Labour”

Dungeekin February 25, 2009 at 15:39

12 weeks for a life.

After all, it’s the fault of the person who died, isn’t it? He was a Prole, recklessly impeding the progress of a Member of the Labour Elite.

No doubt upon his release from 5-star luxury imprisonment, the Noble Lord will be suing the deceased’s Estate for compensation.

mary February 25, 2009 at 16:46

The usual hypocrisy at work here.

Another noble Lord, this time Mandelson, has introduced the Bill to privatise the Royal Mail today, that is one day earlier than scheduled. Surely not taking advantage of the bad news day?

Next week, Gordo will be reading out three more names of dead soldiers in that sonorous tone as befits the son of the manse following those of the three he read out today. What total hypocrisy. And as for saying ..every child is precious… no parent should have to endure the death of a child… in reference to the death of Ivan Cameron, does he consider those parents of the 437 recently dead children in Gaza. As patron of the British Jewish National Fund and am arch supporter of the Zionist state, he should be ashamed for his hypocrisy here.

john February 25, 2009 at 16:48

I think they have room to wriggle on this, the woman was driving at 70mph on an A road, which is above the speed limit, the peer was traveling at 60 mph and above on the motorway, which is below the speed limit, I guess they confirmed this using camera footage ………..

The person the peer hit was in the outside lane, I assume the person the woman hit was pulled over to the side of the road. The question is are the sentences in proportion to the degree of culpability.

Tests have shown that even using a hands free system the driver is still distracted while talking on the phone, texting must be even more of a distraction. They should make an example of the peer, people need to learn that driving a car does not give you the right to endanger other people’s lives. Both sentences are too short.

mary February 25, 2009 at 16:50

I omitted the link to Mandelson’s introduction of the Bill in the Lords.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7910876.stm

Daniel Hoffmann-GIll February 25, 2009 at 17:10

Good flag, thanks Craig.

JimmyGiro February 25, 2009 at 17:56

And of course another law for men:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/jail-for-driver-who-killed-man-while-text-messaging-691834.html

Neil Hoskins February 25, 2009 at 18:33

May be worth mentioning that in the first case the victim was facing the wrong way in the fast lane where he had crashed. He “had been drinking”, although that seems to have mysteriously disappeared from the BBC report during the course of the day. In the second case the victim was parked by the side of the road changing a tyre. Don’t misunderstand me: drink driving isn’t a capital offence in the UK and I am NOT saying he deserved it or anything stupid like that. However, in legal terms, I believe there is just a little bit of mitigation and/or contributory negligence.

dean_saor February 25, 2009 at 18:37

Remember the story about the Duke of Plaza-Toro who led his armies from the rear? I was always taught that Leadership (I still have a copy of the Sandhurst precis somewhere) involved leading from the front and setting a good example.

I’m sure that someone could come up with equally unbalanced examples in other spheres: how about “benefit fraud” aka “stealing from the taxpayer”? I’m sure there are a few people languishing in chokey for fiddling a few quid on their unemployment benefit. So what about HM Secretary of State for the Home Office, then?

writerman February 25, 2009 at 19:09

There is one law for the rich and one for the poor. One can hardly have a society, like Britain, with such vast inequalities of wealth and power, and expect the law to be any different. Most law has, historically, been based on defending property rights and the position of the ruling elite, and it’s still the case. The rich can of course employ the best legal advice, and the courts traditionally punish the rich far more leniently than the poor, for the same crime. Until one changes the fundamental ground-rules for society, where wealth is the most important factor in virtually all areas of social interaction, nothing much will change.

anticant February 25, 2009 at 20:22

“And shall Lord Ahmed pay?

His ten-thousand-strong rentamob

Will see the answer’s ‘Nay'”.

merkin February 26, 2009 at 01:43

‘Note that in neither case is it true – contrary to propaganda – that the texting was several minutes before the crash.’

I would have surmised so.

However, any links to ‘grist for the mill’?

rwendland February 26, 2009 at 15:09

The judge in the Ahmed case did say “It’s clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident.”. Also according to the BBC Ahmed “sent and received text messages minutes before”. It appears that the judge did not think the texting directly caused the collision. There do appear to be significant differences in the circumstances.