Texting crash motorist convicted
A motorist has been found guilty of killing another driver after using her mobile phone to send and receive more than 20 text messages.
Given the above case, perhaps someone in the CPS would like to explain why Lord Ahmed is being treated differently under the law? In both cases the driver killed someone else whilst texting and driving. One is charged with causing death by dangerous driving, the other simply charged with dangerous driving. Why should a Labour peer get preferential treatment?
1 comment:
Because he obviously did not have anything to do with the deaths of the people in the broken down car in the outside lane of the motorway. Although he was sending text messages on his phone whilst driving it is obvious that the people Lord Ahmed hit died through an act of their own free will. Although they were still alive just before his jag hit their car, they suddenly decided between themselves that in the circumstances it would be the right thing to do, so they just gave up the will to live and expired JUST before his car hit them.
Obvious really, isn't it?
Post a Comment