BoxRec

AMIR Khan's brother was last night quizzed by cops after allegedly knocking down a pedestrian in the boxer's car.
Haroon Khan was held after a 37-year-old suffered a fractured skull.

The man — allegedly hit in a bus lane — was last night in a stable and non-life threatening condition in hospital.

Haroon — known as Harry — was driving an Audi A4 that belongs to former world lightwelterweight champ Amir in Bolton, Greater Manchester.

Flyweight boxer Haroon, 21, was born and raised in Britain but will represent Pakistan at the Olympics in London this summer.

Amir, 25, has a history of dramas on the road. In July 2009, he was cleared over a smash which put a cyclist in hospital. In October 2007 he was convicted of careless driving after he went through a red light and badly injured a pedestrian.

The boxer was cleared of dangerous driving but found guilty of careless driving. He was given a six-month driving ban and fined £1,000.

Gomez starting a Khan thread, whatever next...

Was it a man in a hat perchance?

The man in the hat snook into the passenger seat. He then got hold of the wheel and smashed the car into that poor pedestrian.

Are there no depths that man won't drop to to hurt the Khan's??

It's a hat trick.

Being a tw@t is obviously hereditary.

Pretty tasteless responses here, given that a man was nearly killed and could well be maimed for life.

What is it with these Khan inbreds? These spoilt little rich kids in their flash cars powering down the road with complete contempt for human life. Hope Haroon gets locked up, but will probably get some small fine and have a laugh about the whole thing with his 'bredrins'.

I honestly think GOmez is obsessed

loaded_gloves wrote:Pretty tasteless responses here, given that a man was nearly killed and could well be maimed for life.

What is it with these Khan inbreds? These spoilt little rich kids in their flash cars powering down the road with complete contempt for human life. Hope Haroon gets locked up, but will probably get some small fine and have a laugh about the whole thing with his 'bredrins'.

i know i may get jumped on for this, but i think its the same with a lot of young muslim men. they seem to get a kick out of fast cars cos its really the only vice they are "allowed". Same with Naz wasnt it?

stevieb_8006 wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Pretty tasteless responses here, given that a man was nearly killed and could well be maimed for life.

What is it with these Khan inbreds? These spoilt little rich kids in their flash cars powering down the road with complete contempt for human life. Hope Haroon gets locked up, but will probably get some small fine and have a laugh about the whole thing with his 'bredrins'.

i know i may get jumped on for this, but i think its the same with a lot of young muslim men. they seem to get a kick out of fast cars cos its really the only vice they are "allowed". Same with Naz wasnt it?

3 guys mentioned. But you're gonna paint all Muslim men with the same brush?

Young athletes with disposable income spend money on all sorts and wreak all sorts of havoc. It comes with the territory of wealth. It's always been the case with Boxers, Basketballers, Footballers, Baseballl players and Celebrities etc.

Some can keep their composure, others can't. Regardless of their Race, Colour, Belief etc.

Khan has defo banged Gomezs mrs ?

Unhealthy obsession D

observer1 wrote:

stevieb_8006 wrote:

loaded_gloves wrote:Pretty tasteless responses here, given that a man was nearly killed and could well be maimed for life.

What is it with these Khan inbreds? These spoilt little rich kids in their flash cars powering down the road with complete contempt for human life. Hope Haroon gets locked up, but will probably get some small fine and have a laugh about the whole thing with his 'bredrins'.

i know i may get jumped on for this, but i think its the same with a lot of young muslim men. they seem to get a kick out of fast cars cos its really the only vice they are "allowed". Same with Naz wasnt it?

3 guys mentioned. But you're gonna paint all Muslim men with the same brush?

Young athletes with disposable income spend money on all sorts and wreak all sorts of havoc. It comes with the territory of wealth. It's always been the case with Boxers, Basketballers, Footballers, Baseballl players and Celebrities etc.

Some can keep their composure, others can't. Regardless of their Race, Colour, Belief etc.

maybe. but if you re-read my post i actually said "a lot of", and not "all". I also said "young", and i may be correct in thinking thats not every single muslim man. So im not really tarring them all with the same brush.

My point is, if you are young, wreckless, excitable and happen to be a young muslim man then there arent may ways to get your kicks, so "some" indulge in a love of fast cars.

MachoMan09 wrote:Observer, to be fair to Stevie, I have spent half my adult life in Islamic countries and to say the general standard of driving is reckless would be an understatement. Young, old and anywhere in between appears to make no difference, they put their toe down and go for it. If you ask them what the eff they are playing at and if they care that they might kill themselves, or somebody else, they just say smile and say "Inshallah". That's fact, mate.

Speaking from my own experience in the UK. I have seen pretty much every group of people (Whites, Blacks, Asians) involved in the same stuff.

Some work hard, others are lazy, some prefer eating out, some prefer joy riding. Their colour or background is pretty much irrelevant.

The only correlation or similarities is how much disposable cash they have to spend.

MachoMan09 wrote:Observer, to be fair to Stevie, I have spent half my adult life in Islamic countries and to say the general standard of driving is reckless would be an understatement. Young, old and anywhere in between appears to make no difference, they put their toe down and go for it. If you ask them what the eff they are playing at and if they care that they might kill themselves, or somebody else, they just say smile and say "Inshallah". That's fact, mate.

If a pedestrian is injured by a driver - especially if seriously hospitalised, as in this case - it is rare for the police NOT to charge at the least careless driving and usually dangerous driving (Crown Court, distinct possibility of custody).

MachoMan09 wrote:

observer1 wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:Observer, to be fair to Stevie, I have spent half my adult life in Islamic countries and to say the general standard of driving is reckless would be an understatement. Young, old and anywhere in between appears to make no difference, they put their toe down and go for it. If you ask them what the eff they are playing at and if they care that they might kill themselves, or somebody else, they just say smile and say "Inshallah". That's fact, mate.

Speaking from my own experience in the UK. I have seen pretty much every group of people (Whites, Blacks, Asians) involved in the same stuff.

Some work hard, others are lazy, some prefer eating out, some prefer joy riding. Their colour or background is pretty much irrelevant.

The only correlation or similarities is how much disposable cash they have to spend.

I'm not talking about joy riding or flash cars or a wayward minority of the nation's youth. I'm saying that almost everybody in the Middle East and Asia drives like a effing lunatic with a death wish. They appear to have no concept of road safety and their spacial awareness is laughable. Whether that has transferred over here and is innate in second and third generation immigrants I don't know.

That is a cultural rather than religious thing. Haroon may be a muslim but he is not from a muslim country. So what bearing does it have what they do in Asia or the middle east when Haroon and Amir were brought up in the UK.

Young men with high testosterone levels (which is basically all top level male atheletes) take risks, it's a feature of being young, and high testosterone. The link is well proven.

danfoster wrote:If a pedestrian is injured by a driver - especially if seriously hospitalised, as in this case - it is rare for the police NOT to charge at the least careless driving and usually dangerous driving (Crown Court, distinct possibility of custody).

Normally isn't there some sort of judicial process in the United Kingdom, involving things like evidence.

The thing that stands out for me is that it says the man was hit in a bus lane. Whether or not Khan should have been there is one thing, but what was a pedestrian doing in a bus lane? Bus lanes tend to have specific hours for cars, but I don't know of any bus lanes that become pavements out of hours.

Glad the way all the usual suspects on here have naturally assumed a crime was committed. He hasn't been charged with anything, has he? All it says is the police interviewed him after an accident. But feel free to make remarks like "distinct possibility of custody" when you know nothing about the case.

gobbles wrote:

danfoster wrote:If a pedestrian is injured by a driver - especially if seriously hospitalised, as in this case - it is rare for the police NOT to charge at the least careless driving and usually dangerous driving (Crown Court, distinct possibility of custody).

Normally isn't there some sort of judicial process in the United Kingdom, involving things like evidence.

The thing that stands out for me is that it says the man was hit in a bus lane. Whether or not Khan should have been there is one thing, but what was a pedestrian doing in a bus lane? Bus lanes tend to have specific hours for cars, but I don't know of any bus lanes that become pavements out of hours.

Glad the way all the usual suspects on here have naturally assumed a crime was committed. He hasn't been charged with anything, has he? All it says is the police interviewed him after an accident. But feel free to make remarks like "distinct possibility of custody" when you know nothing about the case.

gobbles me old pal, I know what you mean about knee jerk reactions, but danfoster knows a bit about judicial process, hence his statement being one of fact generally speaking. He has spent most of his recent time trying to keep recidivist scumbags out of jail! Our streets are NOT safer because of bleeding heart liberals like Mr Foster, let me tell you!

They will kill someone soon. The Khan brothers have seriously injured what, 4 people between them now? Amir was caught doing 140 mph on the motorway. 70 mph is a lethal speed. Imagine having an accident at 140 mph .

Exoddus wrote:They will kill someone soon. The Khan brothers have seriously injured what, 4 people between them now? Amir was caught doing 140 mph on the motorway. 70 mph is a lethal speed. Imagine having an accident at 140 mph :o.

I think Haroon was just trying to get back those two points Amir dropped.

gobbles wrote:

danfoster wrote:If a pedestrian is injured by a driver - especially if seriously hospitalised, as in this case - it is rare for the police NOT to charge at the least careless driving and usually dangerous driving (Crown Court, distinct possibility of custody).

Normally isn't there some sort of judicial process in the United Kingdom, involving things like evidence.

The thing that stands out for me is that it says the man was hit in a bus lane. Whether or not Khan should have been there is one thing, but what was a pedestrian doing in a bus lane? Bus lanes tend to have specific hours for cars, but I don't know of any bus lanes that become pavements out of hours.

Glad the way all the usual suspects on here have naturally assumed a crime was committed. He hasn't been charged with anything, has he? All it says is the police interviewed him after an accident. But feel free to make remarks like "distinct possibility of custody" when you know nothing about the case.

Thanks Gobbles, i will feel free to write what i like as unlike certain individuals for whom you have great sympathy i think that internet forums are an appropriate venue for free speech.

But you do make a fair point here, as i didn't mean to say that this lad is going to prison. I wasn't trying to imply any knowledge of the case whatsoever.

What i meant to say is that in an example case study, when a pedestrian is run over and seriously injured, CPS policy is very often to charge with at the very least careless driving but more usually dangerous driving. The reasoning for this is that courts take the view that in most cases, a careful and competent driver will be travelling at a speed he can safely moderate if a hazard (such as a pedestrian foolishly stepping out) suddenly presents itself. If the driver cannot reduce speed and hits the pedestrian, it is often inferred he was driving recklessly considering all the circumstances of the case.

Of course, that's only a policy and not uniformly applied. It could be that there circumstances in this case that mean the lad has done nothing wrong and i hope that is the case. I have no opinion whatsoever of Haroon Khan and certainly don't wish him ill.

Dangerous driving is a serious offence for which the guidelines suggest that Crown Court is normally the suitable venue for disposal, even on a guilty plea. The guidelines further suggest that when there is serious harm caused custudy is certainly a distinct possibility if not a likelihood.

PS re your question 'what was he doing in the bus lane' - i thought you were protesting about people pre-judging the case? In any event, maybe he was just crossing the road? Pedestrians are allowed to do that and i can confirm that no aspect of the Highway Code ever entitles a driver to strike a pedestrian.

danfoster wrote:

gobbles wrote:

danfoster wrote:If a pedestrian is injured by a driver - especially if seriously hospitalised, as in this case - it is rare for the police NOT to charge at the least careless driving and usually dangerous driving (Crown Court, distinct possibility of custody).

Normally isn't there some sort of judicial process in the United Kingdom, involving things like evidence.

The thing that stands out for me is that it says the man was hit in a bus lane. Whether or not Khan should have been there is one thing, but what was a pedestrian doing in a bus lane? Bus lanes tend to have specific hours for cars, but I don't know of any bus lanes that become pavements out of hours.

Glad the way all the usual suspects on here have naturally assumed a crime was committed. He hasn't been charged with anything, has he? All it says is the police interviewed him after an accident. But feel free to make remarks like "distinct possibility of custody" when you know nothing about the case.

Thanks Gobbles, i will feel free to write what i like as unlike certain individuals for whom you have great sympathy i think that internet forums are an appropriate venue for free speech.

But you do make a fair point here, as i didn't mean to say that this lad is going to prison. I wasn't trying to imply any knowledge of the case whatsoever.

What i meant to say is that in an example case study, when a pedestrian is run over and seriously injured, CPS policy is very often to charge with at the very least careless driving but more usually dangerous driving. The reasoning for this is that courts take the view that in most cases, a careful and competent driver will be travelling at a speed he can safely moderate if a hazard (such as a pedestrian foolishly stepping out) suddenly presents itself. If the driver cannot reduce speed and hits the pedestrian, it is often inferred he was driving recklessly considering all the circumstances of the case.

Of course, that's only a policy and not uniformly applied. It could be that there circumstances in this case that mean the lad has done nothing wrong and i hope that is the case. I have no opinion whatsoever of Haroon Khan and certainly don't wish him ill.

Dangerous driving is a serious offence for which the guidelines suggest that Crown Court is normally the suitable venue for disposal, even on a guilty plea. The guidelines further suggest that when there is serious harm caused custudy is certainly a distinct possibility if not a likelihood.

PS re your question 'what was he doing in the bus lane' - i thought you were protesting about people pre-judging the case? In any event, maybe he was just crossing the road? Pedestrians are allowed to do that and i can confirm that no aspect of the Highway Code ever entitles a driver to strike a pedestrian.

Despite concerted efforts to have Gary Glitter, Jedward and Margaret Thatcher added as exceptions to the rule.

danfoster wrote:

gobbles wrote:

danfoster wrote:If a pedestrian is injured by a driver - especially if seriously hospitalised, as in this case - it is rare for the police NOT to charge at the least careless driving and usually dangerous driving (Crown Court, distinct possibility of custody).

Normally isn't there some sort of judicial process in the United Kingdom, involving things like evidence.

The thing that stands out for me is that it says the man was hit in a bus lane. Whether or not Khan should have been there is one thing, but what was a pedestrian doing in a bus lane? Bus lanes tend to have specific hours for cars, but I don't know of any bus lanes that become pavements out of hours.

Glad the way all the usual suspects on here have naturally assumed a crime was committed. He hasn't been charged with anything, has he? All it says is the police interviewed him after an accident. But feel free to make remarks like "distinct possibility of custody" when you know nothing about the case.

Thanks Gobbles, i will feel free to write what i like as unlike certain individuals for whom you have great sympathy i think that internet forums are an appropriate venue for free speech.

But you do make a fair point here, as i didn't mean to say that this lad is going to prison. I wasn't trying to imply any knowledge of the case whatsoever.

What i meant to say is that in an example case study, when a pedestrian is run over and seriously injured, CPS policy is very often to charge with at the very least careless driving but more usually dangerous driving. The reasoning for this is that courts take the view that in most cases, a careful and competent driver will be travelling at a speed he can safely moderate if a hazard (such as a pedestrian foolishly stepping out) suddenly presents itself. If the driver cannot reduce speed and hits the pedestrian, it is often inferred he was driving recklessly considering all the circumstances of the case.

Of course, that's only a policy and not uniformly applied. It could be that there circumstances in this case that mean the lad has done nothing wrong and i hope that is the case. I have no opinion whatsoever of Haroon Khan and certainly don't wish him ill.

Dangerous driving is a serious offence for which the guidelines suggest that Crown Court is normally the suitable venue for disposal, even on a guilty plea. The guidelines further suggest that when there is serious harm caused custudy is certainly a distinct possibility if not a likelihood.

PS re your question 'what was he doing in the bus lane' - i thought you were protesting about people pre-judging the case? In any event, maybe he was just crossing the road? Pedestrians are allowed to do that and i can confirm that no aspect of the Highway Code ever entitles a driver to strike a pedestrian.

I wasn't pre-judging the case, I was merely pointing out the enormous holes in the assumption that he has necessarily done anything wrong. Replying to you was not really having a go at you, you just made a point that was the most straight-forward to answer. For a lesson is contempt of court, just look at the headline on this thread.

gobbles wrote:

danfoster wrote:

gobbles wrote:
Normally isn't there some sort of judicial process in the United Kingdom, involving things like evidence.

The thing that stands out for me is that it says the man was hit in a bus lane. Whether or not Khan should have been there is one thing, but what was a pedestrian doing in a bus lane? Bus lanes tend to have specific hours for cars, but I don't know of any bus lanes that become pavements out of hours.

Glad the way all the usual suspects on here have naturally assumed a crime was committed. He hasn't been charged with anything, has he? All it says is the police interviewed him after an accident. But feel free to make remarks like "distinct possibility of custody" when you know nothing about the case.

Thanks Gobbles, i will feel free to write what i like as unlike certain individuals for whom you have great sympathy i think that internet forums are an appropriate venue for free speech.

But you do make a fair point here, as i didn't mean to say that this lad is going to prison. I wasn't trying to imply any knowledge of the case whatsoever.

What i meant to say is that in an example case study, when a pedestrian is run over and seriously injured, CPS policy is very often to charge with at the very least careless driving but more usually dangerous driving. The reasoning for this is that courts take the view that in most cases, a careful and competent driver will be travelling at a speed he can safely moderate if a hazard (such as a pedestrian foolishly stepping out) suddenly presents itself. If the driver cannot reduce speed and hits the pedestrian, it is often inferred he was driving recklessly considering all the circumstances of the case.

Of course, that's only a policy and not uniformly applied. It could be that there circumstances in this case that mean the lad has done nothing wrong and i hope that is the case. I have no opinion whatsoever of Haroon Khan and certainly don't wish him ill.

Dangerous driving is a serious offence for which the guidelines suggest that Crown Court is normally the suitable venue for disposal, even on a guilty plea. The guidelines further suggest that when there is serious harm caused custudy is certainly a distinct possibility if not a likelihood.

PS re your question 'what was he doing in the bus lane' - i thought you were protesting about people pre-judging the case? In any event, maybe he was just crossing the road? Pedestrians are allowed to do that and i can confirm that no aspect of the Highway Code ever entitles a driver to strike a pedestrian.

I wasn't pre-judging the case, I was merely pointing out the enormous holes in the assumption that he has necessarily done anything wrong. Replying to you was not really having a go at you, you just made a point that was the most straight-forward to answer. For a lesson is contempt of court, just look at the headline on this thread.

Didn't think he'd been charged yet - if he has then yes, MODS PLEASE DELETE THIS THREAD!

His tweet:

"Just got home from police station had a accident in afternoon knocked a guy over everything on cctv and should be ok."

Doesn't sound like he has been locked up