A motorist who sent and received more than 20 text messages before she crashed into another car killing its driver has been jailed for 21 months.
Philippa Curtis, 21, from Suffolk, was texting before she hit the back of a stationary car at 70mph on the A40 near Wheatley in Oxfordshire.
Victoria McBryde from Northamptonshire, who was dealing with a burst tyre, was killed in the crash in November 2007.
Curtis, of Bury St Edmunds, was also given a three-year driving ban.
She admitted sending text messages while driving, but denied using her mobile phone at the time of the collision.
Your humble Devil tries not to comment on sentencing too much—the only people who know all of the facts are those in the courtroom—but in this case I believe that the sentence is harsh but, I'm afraid, pretty fair.
Still, I am grateful to The Penguin for highlighting another case, from December 2007, in which the driver was texting shortly before ploughing into a stationery car, killing the driver.
In one case, the guilty driver has been sentenced to 21 months in prison.
Sentencing is awaited in the other case.
I trust that a similar custodial sentence will be handed out. It surely wouldn't do to let Lord Ahmed off with a few hours community service just because he's a Muslim? Or a Labour Peer of the Realm? And the corpse was a foreigner?
If 21 months is good enough for a waitress, then it's good enough for Lord Ahmed.
Come, come, my dear Penguin: can't you see that the latter is an especially difficult case to pass sentence on?
On 1 December 2008, Lord Ahmed appeared at Sheffield Magistrates' Court in connection with a charge of dangerous driving. Lord Ahmed admitted sending and receiving five text messages on his phone while driving shortly before the crash, and pleaded guilty to the charge before him. He was banned from driving until his sentencing. On 22 December, Sheffield Magistrates' Court referred the case for sentencing at the crown court on 19 January due to its "aggravating features". This was later put back until 25 February. Lord Ahmed faces a maximum of two years in jail.
We shall see what becomes of poor, wee Lord Ahmed, won't we? And we'll probably learn a bit about just how blind justice is in this country.
Still, I do hope, if Lord Ahmed goes to prison (as the Curtis-McBryde precedent suggests that he should), that Letters From A Tory will keep a close eye on his expenses claims...
UPDATE: Lord Ahmed has not previously crossed into your humble Devil's consciousness, so I send thanks to jon in the comments, who points me to Archbishop Cramner's article on Lord Ahmed. And His Grace pulls no punches.
Lord Ahmed is a repugnant individual. Not only in appearance, but in association, character and morality. And to hear that he has threatened jihad on the House of Lords if their lordships should fail to meet his demands only serves to intensify Cranmer’s loathing of the man.
It appears that a member of the House of Lords had invited the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, to a private meeting in the Palace of Westminster. She had intended to invite her colleagues in the Lords to a private viewing of his ‘documentary’ Fitna, followed by discussion and debate in true parliamentary fashion. This is, after all, a liberal democracy, and their lordships enjoy the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association, not to mention certain parliamentary privileges for the protection of their function in the legislature.
But no sooner had the unsuspecting baroness sent out her invitations, Lord Ahmed raised hell. It is reported that he ‘threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organising the event to court’.
And so Fitna has been cancelled: it shall not now be screened in the House of Lords on 29th January.
The Pakistani Press is jubliant, and Lord Ahmed is praising Allah for delivering ‘a victory for the Muslim community’.
It is a victory for censorship and intolerance; it is a victory for ignorant bigotry over enlightenment: might I suggest that Lord Ahmed simply start a bonfire of books that he dislikes, so that he might be revealed to all as the evil, hate-filled, backward fucknuts that he so obviously is (for as we know, any regime that destroys books is automatically suspect).
It is a sorry state of affairs indeed that a parliament whose liberties have been forged through centuries of religious intolerance should succumb to the threats of one intolerant Muslim.
Well, he's in good company with the rest of the Labour Party, eh? Most of the government are just as stupid and bigoted as Lord Ahmed, and they have a prodigious fondness for banning things.
If this man is not slammed into prison for a decent length of time for his part in the killing, I shall consider it a personal affront.
UPDATE 2: there's yet more on the charmless Lord Ahmed from my impecunious Athenian friend. Truly, Lord Ahmed seems to be an utter shit of the very first water and utterly undeserving of a peerage: his very presence in the Lords besmirches even its current tainted reputation...