[nicknick1]

A shining beacon to Labour's philosophy.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by That Bearded Man)
The important point is the 2 week jail term for texting while driving, i.e what manslaughter? 2 WEEKS!!!

(Original post by PPE)
well, I think they played this down quite well

For Christ sake, could neither of you even do even a base amount of Googling?

Honestly, sometimes I think people have the collective intelligence of a goldfish.

Lady Justice Hallett said it was important to state that Ahmed's offence was one of dangerous driving, not of causing death by dangerous driving. Hallett said that there was "little or nothing" Ahmed could have done to avoid the collision and that after being knocked unconscious, he had come to and "risked his life trying to flag down other vehicles to stop them colliding with the Audi or his car".

[Phantom Lord]

(Original post by nicknick1)
A shining beacon to Labour's philosophy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...llegation.html

[Stanley Baldwin]

When I read this I thought "Jihad Jenny" but it wasn't who it turned out to be.

Some people need to be very, very careful what they say. This cannot be excused as being 'misinterpreted'. A bounty is very specific... unless he spins it as being the chocolate bar we all know and love.

[I-Am-A-Tripod]

(Original post by AkaJetson)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...llegation.html

thanks for clarifying -the clip shows him clearly saying if the US can offer 10 mil dollars for head of terrorist group hafeez, then he we offer the same bounty to bring bush or blair to answer for their crimes And will sell his house to do so- which is basically what he has been qioted to have said.

Then he goes on to talk about the political pressure US and UK has put on pakistans government- what exactly is his concern with pakistans government, when he is suppossed to be a Lord in the UK parliament? Also failed to uncover in this speech his own links with the very terrorist hafiz saeed, hence his concern of a US bounty being put over his head

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
For Christ sake, could neither of you even do even a base amount of Googling?

Honestly, sometimes I think people have the collective intelligence of a goldfish.

Ahmed was convicted of driving his car into someone elses, while sending text messages, from which they died- his high priced QC got him off a full blown manslaughter charge
Well done for defending such actions. Sort of goes hand in hand with you vouching entirely for Mr ahmeds character without having ever heard of him before this thread. Nice

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
Ahmed was convicted of driving his car into someone elses, while sending text messages, from which they died- his high priced QC got him off a full blown manslaughter charge

No, he was convicted of dangerous driving, not manslaughter. The judge specifically made a point of publicly highlighting that he had no ability to have prevented the man's death. Honestly, how thick can you be. You don't have to endorse his behaviour to be able to use basic common sense.

[I-Am-A-Tripod]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)


No, he was convicted of dangerous driving, not manslaughter. The judge specifically made a point of publicly highlighting that he had no ability to have prevented the man's death. . You don't have to endorse his behaviour to be able to use basic common sense.

What, basic commmon sense is that you deny what he is quoted to have said, despite a clip having been posted on this thread showing him saying it, in pakistan. In some sort of defiance to the pursuit of a known islamic terrorist in pakistan, who presumable he has some allegiance to.
Honestly, how thick can you be?

[Iqbal007]

"Lord Ahmed, according to the Express Tribune, said: "If the US can announce a reward of $10m for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of £10m on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush.""

So trying to make a point, makes him a terrorist especially when he puts a bounty on someone? Wouldn't that technically mean that Obama himself is a 'terrorist' according to the OP's point......this is so much crap

[RadiantA]

Almost everyone in politics are terrorists with blood on their hands. What can you do?

Despite there's no evidence for any terrorist involvement or any evidence to support the claims the press made; which he condemned ^^

lol at how people like to cause controversy - how disappointing .

[I-Am-A-Tripod]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
"Lord Ahmed, according to the Express Tribune, said: "If the US can announce a reward of $10m for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of £10m on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush.""

So trying to make a point, makes him a terrorist especially when he puts a bounty on someone? Wouldn't that technically mean that Obama himself is a 'terrorist' according to the OP's point......this is so much crap

more that he is supporting a particular pakistani terrorist black listed by various international bodies for attacks in India (not just US) by denouncing US action aganist them. Bit like denouncing the bounty on Bin laden or various other alqueda heads. Not particulalry surprising given his 'fund raising' for various unclean pakisatni organisations.

if he has a particular beef regarding bush or blair, what does it have to do with the ongoing hunting of islamic terrorists, and what is his loyalty to the pakistans government anyway, given his position in the british House of parliamnent

[Cannotbelieveit]

Lord Ahmed - That pretty much sums up New Labour's multiculturalism policy.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
What, basic commmon sense is that you deny what he is quoted to have said, despite a clip having been posted on this thread showing him saying it, in pakistan. In some sort of defiance to the pursuit of a known islamic terrorist in pakistan, who presumable he has some allegiance to.
Honestly, how thick can you be?

Not enough facepalms in the world for this...

Right, I have never 'denied' the quote attributed to him by the OP. What I then found ridiculous was the quote attributed to him unsourced by another user. I subsequently asked for a source, and he provided a video which didn't even contain the sentences the user was quoting.

Time and time again, I've said - if you've got some charge to make as to illegal activities, show some evidence, I'm all ears. But time and time again you've refused to do so - why? Most likely because you haven't got any, it's just baseless charges formative of your inherent bias.

Lastly, I've called you thick because you don't seem to understand the basic elements of the judiciary process. He wasn't charged with manslaughter and he wasn't convicted of having killed anyone to the point where the judge made a public announcement of his not having been able to do anything about the man's death. What he was charged with was dangerous driving due to texting - which, I'll point out, did not cause the collision. Therefore your charges about how he 'got away lightly' after having 'killed someone' is bogus nonsense, thereby proclaiming your stupidity.

[Heavenly_Blues]

Well obviously we have a terrorist in the house of lords, he's climbin' in yo windows, blowin' yo' people up.

Spoiler:

Show

[badcheesecrispy]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)

Time and time again, I've said - if you've got some charge to make as to illegal activities, show some evidence, I'm all ears. But time and time again you've refused to do so - why? Most likely because you haven't got any, it's just baseless charges formative of your inherent bias.

no one said they wanted to charge this guy with anything.

your inherent bias is why you are defending someone who clearly supports terrorists and doesnt give a crap for the country whose House of Lords he is sitting in. Why isnt this guy deported to Pakistan, which he clearly cares more for than Britain so he can join the parliament there. These people are the biggest hypocrites and low lives about. they make me feel sick.

its blatantly obvious what he said, why he said it, what his intentions are and who he cares more for, so what is there to debate? or is it just that this guy is a fellow muslim/pakistani and of course you have to defend him no matter what he does?

no wonder this guy was suspended, he is in the west in western governments and is talking about putting bounties on their main leaders heads? Aside that, he is doing this in defence of a wanted terrorist who wants to bomb and kill the people whos, again, parliament he is sitting in? Not really surprised, hes a pinnacle for the Labour Party and their anti-british rhetoric

[iSoftie]

(Original post by Snagprophet)
Isn't it wonderful?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17723890

Doesn't seem to hold British interests very high up, does he?

WHEY YOU ARE JUST JELLY! HE'S GOT A TITLE AND YOUR JUST A Mr. :L

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
more that he is supporting a particular pakistani terrorist black listed by various international bodies for attacks in India (not just US) by denouncing US action aganist them. Bit like denouncing the bounty on Bin laden or various other alqueda heads. Not particulalry surprising given his 'fund raising' for various unclean pakisatni organisations.

if he has a particular beef regarding bush or blair, what does it have to do with the ongoing hunting of islamic terrorists, and what is his loyalty to the pakistans government anyway, given his position in the british House of parliamnent

From what I'm seeing, he's highlighting double standards in politics

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by badcheesecrispy)
no one said they wanted to charge this guy with anything.

your inherent bias is why you are defending someone who clearly supports terrorists

'Supporting terrorists' is a chargeable crime. If you seek to call him a 'terrorist supporter', then by all means, present some evidence.

and doesnt give a crap for the country whose House of Lords he is sitting in. Why isnt this guy deported to Pakistan, which he clearly cares more for than Britain so he can join the parliament there.

Because he's a British citizen that apparently hasn't committed any crime worthy of deportation.

its blatantly obvious what he said, why he said it, what his intentions are and who he cares more for, so what is there to debate?

I completely agree, which is why I refer to my original comment. This is a storm in a teacup. He was clearly being facetious.

or is it just that this guy is a fellow muslim/pakistani and of course you have to defend him no matter what he does?

And this here highlights your inherent stupidity. You conflate basic knowledge of the judiciary process with the defence of someone you (for whatever reason) take exception to. Please don't tarnish well educated folk with your stupidity, you are (and I'll be quite honest here), beneath us.

I implore you to actually engage with my comments. However, I doubt that you are intelligent enough to.

[Tubby Isaacs]

(Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
Lord Ahmed - That pretty much sums up New Labour's multiculturalism policy.

I dislike picking out community leaders as much as the next man.
But what about Baroness Warsi then?

She's much more obviously token. Had run once for the Commons, done badly, and winds up in the Cabinet.

[I-Am-A-Tripod]

(Original post by Iqbal007)
From what I'm seeing, he's highlighting double standards in politics

how is objecting to action against known pakistani terrorists "highlighting double standards "
As is said before , he is only interested in this particular story because he has friends (and possibly financial/political interests) in pakistan.

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by I-Am-A-Tripod)
how is objecting to action against known pakistani terrorists "highlighting double standards "
As is said before , he is only interested in this particular story because he has friends (and possibly financial/political interests) in pakistan.

Technically yes, because it's not definite that they are.....another thing is Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion, eventhough their isn't much agreement on the exact definition.....it's arguable that the US itself has done so like India are doing so. So what if he says it, you can't criticise him for doing so, especially when he said it's a joke.
But so does Obama with India, hence his involvement.