So does this make sense - BBC in crap reporting.

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

So the headline is "Peer jailed for motorway texting"

But reading down

"Mr Justice Wilkie made clear the texting incident had no bearing on
the fatal collision."

There's no relationship between the headline and the actual incident.
He pranged into a stationary car sometime after sending the texts. On
the wireless earlier this evening I was very shouty as we were treated
to a sanctimonious senior dibble wittering on about the dangers of
mobiles as if there were a link.

<Grrrrrr>

Obviously had a crap lawyer, should have coughed for careless and
disputed the dangerous.

 

Turned off the radio on the way home as it was all about a dead spaz.
The BBC should get a sense of proportion.

 

That's exactly what I was saying to colleagues when I read it
yesterday.

It's was really shoddy journalism IMO, but it's sadly what I've come to
expect from the Beeb nowadays.

 

The crash, ISTR, happened some 3 minutes after he sent a text. Is it
beyond the realms of possibility he was reading the reply when he
ploughed into Mr. J Foreigner?

Hint: "Texting" is a two-part activity.

 

Supposition, no proof as the beak pointed out. He wasn't the first to
hit the drunken johnny foreigner either who was stationary in lane
three.

The legal system and the police have linked two unrelated incidents
and decided to have a clamp down and thereby make an example of him.

 

He _was_ the first to kill him though.

6 weeks is hardly an example. He'll prolly designate the prison as his
second home and claim a few thou in ACA.

 

What, did the next guy kill him again ?

D.