www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21229813
Chris Huhne speeding trial date set.
|
|
You would think the CPS might have its ducks in a row for that one.
|
|
Who cares about this trivial court case.His ex wife problaby hates his guts and took he rap for his speeding.
|
>> Who cares about this trivial court case.
Quite a lot of people.
I know of several people who have swapped speeding points around, all women who've taken them for their husbands/partners as it happens. Fair put the wind up them I should think if somebody gets jailed.
|
>> Fair put the wind up them I should think if somebody gets jailed.
If someone does get jailed it probably won't be her, will it? Suspended perhaps. But she will have the court's sympathy because of the caddish way she has been treated, because she isn't an MP and because she turned Queen's evidence and dobbed the scowling, unshaven Huhne in.
|
>> Fair put the wind up them I should
>> think if somebody gets jailed.
>>
I recall reading about a few in the past - including the footballer Pericard.
|
>> You would think the CPS might have its ducks in a row for that one.
>>
You would like to think so...should be interesting.
The reality is, many, many 'normal' people do this sort of thing..but..it is most unwise because you are fiddling with the whole fabric of the justice system...
..but there again if most defendants lie through their teeth in the witness box, why shouldn't the usually straightforward have a go sometimes, as well?
I've never ever heard of a lying defendant get found guilty, then get investigated for the pack of lies told under oath, it seems to be an accepted practice.
Not good for a moralating senior politician though, is it?
|
>> it is most unwise because you are fiddling with the whole fabric of the justice system...
Indeed, but the whole "you must grass yourself/loved ones up" related to cars caught speeding seems to be a distinct fiddle too.
|
>> Indeed, but the whole "you must grass yourself/loved ones up" related to cars caught speeding
>> seems to be a distinct fiddle too.
Yup, its a fiddle of a law, so it gets the response it deserves. I wouldn't think twice about swopping points if the situation called for it.
|
Got caught by a mobile camera van a few years back on the way to visit the outlaws. Both of us had driven at some point, and not remembering who may have been driving at that point I argued that they were her points as we were on our way to visit her parents.....
Had a letter back saying it appeared to be a female driver from the photos, and did Mrs B want to reconsider saying it was her at the wheel. The enclosed photos left it in no doubt who was driving.....
|
>> Yup, its a fiddle of a law, so it gets the response it deserves. I
>> wouldn't think twice about swopping points if the situation called for it.
A workmates CP copped three for 40 in a thirty in Brighton. Workmate confided that if his partner were caught again he'd take the points for him as CP drove lots of miles on business.
Pointed out that loss of job/pension were pretty certain and that he was probably not well suited to life inside!
Fortunately it never happened. Three years later they split up fairly acrimoniously.
|
>> I've never ever heard of a lying defendant get found guilty, then get investigated for
>> the pack of lies told under oath, it seems to be an accepted practice.
IIRC it's regarded as against public policy to prosecute guilty defendants for perjury. Few real gains and the legitimate with an odd or ill-rememberer account may be deterred from properly defending themselves.
Get caught after a not guilty verdict, lying for someone else or in a civil case and you'll be inside soonest - Archer and Aitken for starters.
|
>>IIRC it's regarded as against public policy to prosecute guilty defendants for perjury.
Which makes sense really, since half the Not Guilty pleas would end up being considered perjury.
|
|
He has entered a "Not Guilty" plea and so has she, but uses the phrase "Matrimonial Coercion", which implies to me a bit of the bully boy tactics which were perhaps going on during the marriage breakdown/up.
|
'...half the Not Guilty pleas would end up being considered perjury.'
'He has entered a "Not Guilty" plea and so has she...'
So in this case it seems, prima facie, that one half of the Not Guilty pleas is perjury. Mind you, I don't know what the precise wording of the charges is.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 17:22
|
|
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
|
>>Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Actually
"Heaven has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turned, Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorned...."
Not a "hath" in sight.
|
>> Actually
>>
>> "Heaven has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turned, Nor Hell a Fury, like a
>> Woman scorned...."
>>
>> Not a "hath" in sight.
>>
One should point out that one's comment was not in quote marks and was therefore one's own words and not attributable to anyone who may have used a similar phrase at some time in the past.
Consider yourself as having had a velvet glove drawn smartly across your cheek.
|
>>Consider yourself as having had a velvet glove drawn smartly across your cheek
Do you charge for that?
|
>> Do you charge for that?
>>
Oi, keep it clean.
|
A good friend, a lady who has some high political connections although herself not at all political, horrified me a year or so back by saying she had met Chris Huhne and that in her judgement he is 'attractive'.
Although I have lived long enough to know that the nicest and most intelligent women are quite capable of taking up with the most howling carphounds, I never cease being amazed by that sort of thing. Huhne has worse five o'clock shadow than Richard Nixon and looks unpleasant to me even when smiling. What on earth can they see in him?
Perhaps it's the five o'clock shadow. I must get some stage makeup and try to make myself look nastier and more virile. But my heart sinks a bit at the prospect. Slap is so damn sticky darlings...
|
|
And why does everyone call Huhne 'Hewn', when as any fule kno that Germanic name should be pronounced 'Hooner'?
|
|
How should one pronounce "Coussine"? Cow sign?
|
Maybe it is a power thing or some sort of "halo" effect? What did Marilyn Monroe see, physically, in Arthur Miller? What did Liza Minelli see in 3.bp.blogspot.com/-9ijcg_pmDqM/Te0R6hkXWEI/AAAAAAAAHvI/STli_WEYIG8/s1600/David+Gest.jpg
Sorry - snag with tiny url
Last edited by: Meldrew on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 18:14
|
We don't look at looks AC & Meldrew, we look at what's in your heart.
Pat
|
>> We don't look at looks AC & Meldrew, we look at what's in your heart.
>>
>> Pat
It doesn't look to me as if Huhne is scoring too well on that either...but I don't have your point of view ;-)
|
>> We don't look at looks AC & Meldrew, we look at what's in your heart.
>>
>> Pat
It needs to be black......
|
>> What did Marilyn Monroe see, physically, in Arthur Miller?
La Monroe was very bright and had an intellectual side, visible to the observant in her brilliance as a comic. And actually Arthur Miller was square-jawed, pipe-smoking and tall, not a weedy Woody Allen-style Jewish intellectual. Then there was the success and money and so on, usually considered sufficiently aphrodisiac in themselves.
In the mid-fifties they stayed for a while in Englefield Green, just beyond the grounds of my last school. The sixth form 'intellectual society' invited Miller to come and address it, adding as a casual afterthought that he could bring his wife if he liked. It took us ages to compose the letter to everyone's satisfaction, and we waited breathless for the reply that never came. One assumes now that they were inundated with wining and dining invitations, and the chances are that if Miller ever saw the letter he would have dismissed it out of hand. He was a bit of a communist and we, er, weren't.
|
>> /David+Gest.jpg
That cat's on something. Not that one would necessarily disapprove of course.
|
Never mind Liza Minelli, what about Malandra Burrows?! Emmerdale has never been the same since she left :(
www.spokeo.com/Malandra+Burrows+1/Apr+21+2007+Other+Photos
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 29 Jan 13 at 19:21
|
|
Fair to say that DG is the male version of "A two Bag Job"
|
>> Never mind Liza Minelli, what about Malandra Burrows?! Emmerdale has never been the same since
>> she left :(
Even if she was getting them out for the lads, nothing would make me watch Emmerdale.
|
>> Perhaps it's the five o'clock shadow. I must get some stage makeup and try to
>> make myself look nastier and more virile. But my heart sinks a bit at the
>> prospect. Slap is so damn sticky darlings...
>>
We love you just the way you are AC.
Really.
Yes really.
And we'll love you in the morning as well. Yes truly....
:-)
|
to perverting the course of justice. On BBC news now.
Custodial sentence expected.
|
One politician down 634 left to go..
Seriously, the man is a muppet...
Edit
and to think the LDs nearly voted him Leader...
Last edited by: madf on Mon 4 Feb 13 at 10:14
|
|
Blimey, he has put the boot into his ex wife. Presumably he will testify against her if she maintains not guilty.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 4 Feb 13 at 10:14
|
|
Drat - I wish I could find the issue of Private Eye in which 'Number Cruncher' compared the number of MPs in jail/total MPs, to the number in jail from the national population. It was something like a factor of 5 times.
|
Huhne as announced his intention to resign as an MP.
Will be an interesting by-election in Easleigh. Lib/Con marginal where Huhn's majority last time was 3800.
|
>> Will be an interesting by-election in Easleigh. Lib/Con marginal where Huhn's majority last time was
>> 3800.
It will, won't it. My money's on your lot...
|
|
I haven't been following this business closely, but I'm wondering why, after all the vehement denials, he's changing his plea at this point. I realise the trial was about to open, but what has convinced him he will lose? Or is it some tactical reason to do with his ex? Is it that if he goes down she will too - or that, if he pleaded not guilty and was nonetheless convicted, she might get off? I've just got this feeling I'm missing something.
|
|
Presumably he realised he was going to lose - and therefore pleading guilty will reduce the sentence. I can't see how his ex-wife can now claim she is not guilty if he's admitted guilt. She must be hoping she can convince them she was forced/coerced and use that as her defence.
|
>> She must be hoping she can convince them she was forced/coerced
>> and use that as her defence.
That's precisely what she's alleging. AIUI she admits to the facts around the camera and subsequent paperwork.
|
Interesting point FP.
I suspect a failure of nerve after his lawyer has 'read him the runes' on likely outcome given evidence to be lead. If his wife can prove, as coverage has suggested, she was elsewhere at the time/date the camera went off then his legs are kicked from under him.
He's certain to get a custodial sentence and one which is longer than it would have been if he'd come clean at outset. Max for perverting the course is life but that's meant for the most egregious cases of witness intimidation and jury nobbling. I'd guess he's looking at 12-18 months.
Is he now going to 'take the stand' against his ex? She's admitted the basics so unless he's out to undermine her defence of coercion not clear what he'll bring to the party.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 4 Feb 13 at 12:06
|
|
At least his M P's salary that he's been taking for the last 10 years will help towards his legal expenses !
|
>> At least his M P's salary that he's been taking for the last 10 years
>> will help towards his legal expenses !
As he's a multi millionairre I doubt his costs will even be a pinprick for him - top QC nothwithstanding. Neither will he be ruined on release unlike some of the expense fiddlers.
|
If any of us did this we would go to prison.See what happens if they send him down.
|
|
Typical MP it seems - they twist and turn, wriggle and squirm, right to the very end.
|
|
He'll try the Margaret Moran defence, possibly?
|
>> He'll try the Margaret Moran defence, possibly?
>>
You mean temporary insanity as he is an MP..?
Pro rate to the population, there are 5 times more MPs in jail than any other profession..
(and that means at least ten times too few)
|
>>
>>
>> Pro rate to the population, there are 5 times more MPs in jail than any
>> other profession..
>>
More than burglars?
|
>> they twist and turn, wriggle and squirm, right to the very end
Most people would under the circumstances.
Hooner is rich, so the initial offence was just a foolish attempt to escape the cost and inconvenience of having to employ a driver for the period of his totting-up ban. He would have got away with it too, had he waited long enough before unceremoniously dumping his wife for a more winsome replacement.
Evidently he will now try to take la Pryce down with him by claiming she volunteered to take the points, etc., to undermine her 'unusual' defence alleging marital coercion. So far he emerges as worse than her, but they both seem the sort of people best kept at arm's length.
I can't rejoice in the possibility of either of them getting porridge though. Schadenfreude isn't really my thing. I am more of a 'there but for the grace of God' man.
|
|
Agree A.C up to a point.They both don't look the kind of people you have as friends.Like looks for like.The money won't bother him its' his pride and not being a MP what will hurt him.He was and is a potential leader.Schadefreude no.A example to us lesser folks yes.
|
|
Wonder if they bunk him up with Big Camp Alf? Likes a bit of posh does Alf...
|
|
i didnt think a spouse could testify against a partner...ex ?
|
>> i didnt think a spouse could testify against a partner...ex ?
>>
Maybe I've been watching too many cop shows on telly but I believe a spouse cannot be compelled to give evidence against a partner.
I guess in this one willingness to testify is not in question
|
|
You're right "compellable" is the key word in relation to a spouse witness...
|
"more winsome"
Are you certain of this?!
I think it's time for a Huhne's law - whereby the wealthy contribute towards their prison costs. £1,000 per week for the privilege of your board and lodging, methinks.
|
"I can't rejoice in the possibility of either of them getting porridge though."
Neither can I - I don't want to pay for their jail stay; they aren't dangerous, are they? I'd much rather see them in orange onesies picking up litter from the verges bordering the A14.
|
Suitable sentence?
Cost of police % court time + 500 hours community service
Call it £1+m and cleaner streets
The million might not worry him but 500 hours sweeping the streets in his constituency might be a penance better that £50K - the cost of 12 mths in the pokey
|
Things seem a little clearer from The Telegraph, where it says:
"It can now be reported that Huhne only changed his plea to guilty after trying to get the case against him thrown out in a series of pre-trial hearings."
tinyurl.com/auwj4mm
So, in effect, Huhne has been wriggling until he can wriggle no more, so Bromp's point about "a failure of nerve" is close - or rather, the realisation that he was facing the inevitable.
In that article there's some mildly interesting stuff about Huhne's son's role in all this.
|
|
A lot of people in high places and/or with loads of dough believe they're above the law, unfotunately that often proves to be the case.
|
>> A lot of people in high places and/or with loads of dough believe they're above the law, unfotunately that often proves to be the case.
I was thinking along similar lines maltrap, with the rider that an example has to be made every now and again to prevent people from concluding that the law is for sale in this country as in so many others, to invalidate the obvious, often-seen vulgar-cynical generalization.
Looks as if Hooner has been chosen for this unenviable role. He isn't personable in my book but I do feel a stirring of slightly shamefaced and scornful sympathy. It was a silly thing he did but I've done sillier.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 4 Feb 13 at 17:01
|
"It was a silly thing he did..."
No, it wasn't. It wasn't "silly", which diminishes it and makes it like a child's piece of naughtiness.
I do not believe it was a spur-of-the-moment, casual thing. It was calculated and immoral. He is one of these people who believes they are either too great, too good (in their own estimation) or too important to accept responsibility for their actions.
I notice Louise Mensch feels sorry for him. I don't.
|
Calculation and immorality are nothing to a professional politician FP, part of the necessary stock in trade whether we like it or not.
It was silly. A question of not taking seriously enough the possible consequences of things going pear-shaped. Matters a lot more to a high-flying politician with cabinet potential than some banal company director.
Silly.
|
"Calculation and immorality are nothing to a professional politician FP..."
Now that I do agree with. And given that that is the case, then of course it being a "silly" action fits the man, the attitude and the role.
I still say that, in the larger scheme of things, it is far more serious, in that a man who got close to leading his party was capable of these sorts of actions. If we're not careful, we start to believe that lying is a trivial matter. We start to accept that those in public office are all rotten to the core, and just shrug our shoulders.
If you don't mind my saying so, AC, sometimes you sound just a trifle too world-weary.
|
>> We start to accept that those in public office are all rotten to the core, and just shrug our shoulders.
I certainly don't think that. 'Rotten to the core' is quite rare in all walks of life.
It's just that politics, as a practice on serious levels, involves considerable skill at saying one thing and being able to prove later that you really meant something slightly different, coding your discourse so that it is acceptable to punters and colleagues at the same time, dealing with back-stabbing rivals with similar violence, speaking with forked tongue to those foreign devils, and so on.
These techniques and practices are quite often used to further moral causes. Sometimes the best thing for your own or your party's interests is to do something disinterested. Puzzling isn't it? Enough to make anyone sound world-weary. But I'm not, not always anyway.
|
"It was calculated and immoral. He is one of these people who believes they are either too great, too good (in their own estimation) or too important to accept responsibility for their actions."
Of course he may have been smug and self important but to imagine this crime is somehow the prerogative of the rich and powerful is underestimating how widespread it is.
Many people would hardly see it as a crime at all. There are plenty of drivers out there from all levels of society facing disqualification and loss of their licence who have done exactly the same thing. I myself am aware of two whom I strongly suspect of doing so and did not someone post on here the other day to say they would happily do the same thing?
Not condoning it, far from it, just pointing out that Mr Huhne is not alone.
|
>> Many people would hardly see it as a crime at all.
I dont.
>>There are plenty of
>> drivers out there from all levels of society facing disqualification and loss of their licence
>> who have done exactly the same thing. I myself am aware of two whom I
>> strongly suspect of doing so and did not someone post on here the other day
>> to say they would happily do the same thing?
Yes, me. When I was running around with 9 points, and my bread winning potential would have been in danger, I am pretty sure that given favourable circumstances a flash against me would have been swopped.
The idea that you have to grass yourself up because of a camera flash goes really against the grain for me, and plenty of others. The process and enforcement is in serious disrepute.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 4 Feb 13 at 17:51
|
"The idea that you have to grass yourself up because of a camera flash goes really against the grain for me, and plenty of others. The process and enforcement is in serious disrepute."
Oh, here we go. This is how it works, then: "I'll obey the law and do the decent thing as long as it suits me."
"Grass yourself up" - how ridiculous! It's called "taking responsiblity". If you don't break the speed limit the camera won't flash, for Gawd's sake.
|
Some of us are not quite as saintly and sanctimonious.
As it happens I haven't been flashed, ever, and not because I don't break the speed limit
And perlease, don't tell me you never break the speed limit, because I would have to call you a bleedin liar.
|
Well, I'm sorry if it came over as sanctimonious, but your previous post was provocative. I'm not saintly and don't wish to paint myself as such.
And yes, I have and do break the speed limit. I'm not particularly proud if it. I have been flashed, with three points and a fine on one occasion. It didn't occur to me not to accept my punishment.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Mon 4 Feb 13 at 18:19
|
>> Well, I'm sorry if it came over as sanctimonious, but your previous post was provocative.
Oh come on, provocative? It was merely honest and represents the way a lot of people think (and act) in the uk on this issue.
|
|
Pretty much agree with you there AC. A dim, dumb and arrogant thing he did but all this really achieves now is to feed his ex wife's desire for personal retribution. He's going resign and probably should. A large fine in addition would be appropriate in my view. He didn't actually kill anyone, he just drove above the speed limit and lied about it when he was caught. Not the act of a gentleman but equally not the act of a man we should spend any more time even giving a second thought to. He made his bed and has now finally lain in it. I'd rather he just faded into obscurity now. We have much bigger fish to fry.
|
|
Whilst some may consider it only a minor traffic offence or he has been silly, arrogant or whatever do you consider that those who have honestly put their hands up taken it on the chin and faced the consequences deserve to see that he also suffers consequences?
|
>> Whilst some may consider it only a minor traffic offence or he has been silly,
>> arrogant or whatever do you consider that those who have honestly put their hands up
>> taken it on the chin and faced the consequences deserve to see that he also
>> suffers consequences?
Its a speeding offence for gawds sake not bleeding kiddy fiddling.
Perverting the course of justice you retort. Rollox I say, that is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut, its authority desperately trying to enforce a completely disreputable legal process camera/speeding fine that is)
There would be far better ways to deal with this, the option to give both a driving ban say.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 4 Feb 13 at 17:56
|
>>There would be far better ways to deal with this...
Tend to agree. Fine, ban, sacking, resultant subsequent humiliation etc.
Prison stretch ? Inappropriate in my view.
|
>> Prison stretch ? Inappropriate in my view.
>>
I agree. I think the mere fact thet Huhne is involved has muddied the waters in this particular case. Too many people hate his guts.
Maybe the Prison option is intended as some sort of safeguard to stop him entering public life again?
|
|
An arrogant, lying, two faced clown.
|
I don't know what all the fuss is about
There are 650 liars, cheats and thieves in Westminster, they only tend to be exposed one at at time and it was obviously his turn.
As for the other 649 its only a matter of time.
As always
Mark
Last edited by: Mark on Mon 4 Feb 13 at 18:05
|
>> I don't know what all the fuss is about
>>
>> There are 650 liars, cheats and thieves in Westminster, they only tend to be exposed
>> one at at time and it was obviously his turn.
That's untrue, and possibly actionable.
And if somebody *did* bring a libel action against you - as well they could - then I would feel sorry for you in the same way as I feel sorry for Huhne. A momentary lapse, doing something that seemed inconsequential, and ending up the subject of a court case as it blows out of all proportion.
I am sure there are thousands of couples - if not tens of thousands - who will be looking at each other over the breakfast table tomorrow morning and thinking 'It could be us next.'
Law that is so widely broken in a completely undetectable fashion is bad law. Losing your licence for being flashed four times is too draconian - and I am no apologist for speeding, but the camera is completely unforgiving and that a moment's inattention at the wrong moment, four times over a three year period, leads to a driving ban is to my mind completely unacceptable.
Don't ask me what the better solution is.
However, the law is the law and he will quite rightly go to jail for perverting the course of justice.
But I hope his vindictive wife does too. To argue marital coercion when she is a high flying woman en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicky_Pryce is not exactly a blow for female emancipation, and she is as bad as he is. Given her 'revelation' was done purely for a matter of revenge, there is a certain poetic justice. (And no, I do not think he treated her anything other than dreadfully, but she has put him in jail, he just went off with another woman.)
|
This all only came out because of her didn't it. I assume she hoped he'd be found guilty and nobody would blame her. But she accepted responsibility for the speeding offence and is therefore guilty too. I wonder if she'll change her plea now?
How can she have thought she would never be found guilty of perverting the course of justice?
Sadly I think she deserves what is coming her way. She lies about the speeding. And she knew what she was doing.
I wonder how common taking the rap for speeding like this is though? Probably more common than some will like to admit. And another crime that people commit all too often is fraud when it comes to insurance and main drivers - e.g. fronting.
|
Chris Huhne became a MP in 2005
His offence was committed when he was not yet an MP...
|
I am sure there are thousands of couples - if not tens of thousands - who will be looking at each other over the breakfast table tomorrow morning and thinking 'It could be us next.'...
Too true MM and good post, I personally know of several folk who have either done this or considered it. What a mess, I do feel a certain sympathy, none of us are perfect and I most certainly am not!
|
I know a few people who have done exactly the same, and there was a time in my life when I would have done the same myself. I'm glad I didn't, because as this case shows you can never be certain it won't come out at some point in the future.
I hope the Ex is found guilty. She knew exactly what she was doing and is just a spiteful cow.
|
>> she has put him in jail, he just went off with another woman.)
We mustn't anticipate the verdict of the courts. However he didn't just 'go off with another woman'. He took up with a considerably younger woman and informed la Pryce briskly that she had been fired by email. Carphoundish.
Perhaps she now regrets destroying Hooner's political career just out of the resulting pique. Unless tonight's news is using archive footage they are at least on speakers again. But even I - a man and often accused of male chauvinism - can't really blame her for doing that in the heat of the moment.
I hope neither of them does time.
|
As Z and I have said previously, the grating point for many is the self-incrimination of the process. Where else in the legal process does this happen.
If someone bashes someone else and lies to the cops until CCTV evidence proves otherwise, where is the perverting the course of justice charge?
2 men rob a bank, one is caught and pleads guilty: why isn't he compelled to daub in his mate?
The option to stay quiet to prevent self-incrimination is enshrined in pretty much all civilised legal systems. With the camera evidence not showing a driver's face there is insufficient to use in a prosecution unless someone is compelled to say who was driving.
There is no option to stay quiet with this which I find interesting and a flawed way to make 'camera justice' work - forward filming cameras exist - use them.
|
Surely Lygonos the real issue here is the ambiguous status of technical speeding - i.e. merely exceeding a speed limit, not driving recklessly to the danger and risk of other users of the highway - which on one level is a mere regulation and on another takes on the overblown, pretentious status of 'breaking the law'.
Nearly everyone seems confused about this, and with all due respect to those here who are paid to uphold the so-called 'law', this always makes these discussions extremely tedious to a rational person. And extremely dangerous to a high-flying chancer on the hoof like poor Mr Hooner. As I said above, this sort of thing matters more to a politician than some other boring rich twerp.
I loathe and despise speed cameras. No doubt there are others, but I only know of one that I think may be justified. They are dangerous money-grubbing rubbish profitable to some.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 4 Feb 13 at 19:58
|
Not many drivers like speed camara's.I,ve had my share of points mainly motorway driving.
Twice by cop cars 90mph speed.Clean licence now and try to keep it that way.
|
>> Twice by cop cars 90mph speed.
The only time I was ever done for speeding was by a white fuzz Rover SD1 on the M40 at Denham. They were charming and it wasn't that expensive. The question of denial didn't arise because they only clocked me for 88 and I had been going quite a bit quicker than that. I'm sure they knew too.
Only time I've been done by a camera was for running the red light at the Angel, perfectly safely of course. But that was 60 and 3.
|
"I loathe and despise speed cameras. No doubt there are others, but I only know of one that I think may be justified. They are dangerous money-grubbing rubbish profitable to some."
Likewise but I stand by my comment above.
|
It seems obvious that a jail sentence is in the ordinary sense disproportionate for this case.
But if we say it's only speeding, not murder, and no useful purpose is served by jail, then are we suggesting that it's sometimes OK to pervert etc. ?
Unfortunately I don't think there's much option here. A token sentence would be a signal that it's OK to pass the points around, or lie if it seems fairly victimless.
Not to say that the whole points thing isn't unfair punishes and doesn't punish too aribitrarily.
|
>>
>> Not to say that the whole points thing isn't unfair punishes and doesn't punish too
>> aribitrarily.
>>
It's one of the biggest contributions to civilisation that the invention of the motor car has bestowed - it has blurred the distinction between right and wrong, and turned basically innocent people into criminals.
|
|
Texts that passed between father and son didn't help the former's case
|
The irony is that if he had just taken the points he would have been in far less trouble than he is now, which makes him either incredibly arrogant or incredibly stupid, though perhaps a mix of the two.
Couldnt have happened to a nicer bloke, I hope the smug twit gets what he deserves.
|
|
Any sensible country would have some form of statute of limitations. Lying about a speeding ticket ten years ago is a crime for which I would say society should ignore.
|
|
I have no sympathy for people who repeatedly break driving laws, and who when facing disqualification lie to save their licence. Yes many of us break the laws from time to time, but if you're on 9 points you should drive like a nun. It is possible to live whilst staying within the speed limits!
|
It's important to remember that this case is nothing to do with breaking the speed limit. Huhne has pleaded guilty to Perverting The Course of Justice which has always been taken very seriously and a man in his position would have known that.
As is often the case the crime is minor, it's the cover up that brings you down.
|
>> I don't know what all the fuss is about
>>
>> There are 650 liars, cheats and thieves in Westminster, they only tend to be exposed
>> one at at time and it was obviously his turn.
>>
>> As for the other 649 its only a matter of time.
>>
Sorry Mark but there are and have always been decent people in Westminster who only entered politics for decent motives.
Two recent Northampton MPs, Sally Keeble and Brian Binley are on evidence of their work for the Rail Use Group utterly well motivated. And I say that as somebody who, as Labour footslogger, dedicated a deal of time in 96/7 to unseating Brian's predecessor but one.
I'd also add, randomly from past and present Dennis Skinner, Tony Benn, Chris Mullin and going back a generation Tony Newton. John Major, and Douglas Hurd also seemed decent coves as in his Lords incarnation was Geoffrey Howe.
|
|
... and a host of others unknown to man or beast across both houses, grafting away in grubby obscurity.
|
|
Didn't Howe suffer a managed decline?
|
>> Didn't Howe suffer a managed decline?
In what sense L?
|
As others say this is not about speeding it's about lying to avoid the consequences.
In so far as the spending issue is concerned according to tonight's Standard he'd been caught twice in 2002 and again in 2003 a month before the subject offence on the M11 in March 2003. Subsequent to that 'flash' and before he got the paperwork he was caught in Central London using a handheld phone while driving.
I suspect somebody who, at best, failed to learn form experience.
And I don't buy the 'self incrimination' line either.
After a camera flash the keeper is required to say who was driving. If he says 'me' then he's in no worse position viz a viz defences than somebody pulled by a patrol car or stopped at a radar check.
|
>> After a camera flash the keeper is required to say who was driving.
Why? Other than parliament said so.
Where else in criminal law must one self-incriminate?
|
|
My view, do something wrong - cough it and move on. He lied to the courts, he lied to the public - if he was Pinocchio he have a nose long enough to hang a speed camera. He was in a position of trust and authority. He lied, lied and lied again. He'll get what's coming to him. I don't really care what happens to him one way or another. I despise speed cameras and or vans - blunt instruments. I break the law at my risk - I get caught I pay the consequences.
|
>> Why? Other than parliament said so.
>>
>> Where else in criminal law must one self-incriminate?
Parliament said so is usually good enough. In the absence of a constitution the Human Rights Act/Convention stand as backstops against infringements of that which is fundamental.
A car is a significant piece of kit both financially and in terms of its capacity to do damage. It's not unreasonable to expect the person with oversight of it, the keeper, to take responsibility for it and know who is using it and be able to to say so if required.
As I said previously the driver still has all the defences against speeding he would have if stopped by a patrol or the roadside radar that caught then like flies on Victoria Avenue in Yeadon thirty five years ago.
|
>> Where else in criminal law must one self-incriminate?
?
|
>> >> Where else in criminal law must one self-incriminate?
>>
>> ?
Why is saying who was the driver 'self incrimination'?
I don't see a comparison with denying mugging until the CCTV shows the tattoo on your cheek.
It's a sort of 'pilot's log lite' provision. If you own a car you're expected to know who is using it. To say 'prove it was me driving' is not and should not be necessary.
|
>> Why is saying who was the driver 'self incrimination'?
>> It's a sort of 'pilot's log lite' provision.
Since when did a driver or keeper ever need to log who and what went on with his car?
That's right: never.
And admitting you are the driver is self-incrimination which happens where else in criminal law?
Why not stick to using photographic methods that leave no doubt or ambiguity re the driver?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 4 Feb 13 at 22:23
|
>> Why not stick to using photographic methods that leave no doubt or ambiguity re the
>> driver?
Because if they do driving in scarves, burkhas or full face skid lids or whatever will become a fashion statement.
And while there's no strict requirement to log who/when while driving a car there's a limit to who it might be. A car is big asset for most of us. Only drivers likley are those insured.
It is not and should not be like prove it was me and not Joe Bloggs if caught on CCTV dropping a sweet wrapper.
Even if I'm driving hers or her mine time and place are likely to give BIG clues as to who it was in the hot seat. It won't be me in the 'lingo Aylesbury way on Wednesday neither will it be her on Black Lion hill in the Xantia at 08:15 tomorrow.
|
You're missing the point.
I'm not advocating speeding or dangerous driving: I'm pointing out the glaring defect in a situation where someone is being asked to incriminate themselves.
If the State has insufficient evidence to identify a criminal in any other case, no prosecution takes place.
I was driving and I am the Keeper, ergo if I identify the driver I incriminate myself.
It's a basic point of law to prevent forced testimony, or admissions under duress.
Where else does the accused need to admit to a crime (or offer sufficient evidence otherwise not provided by a prosecuting authority) or suffer a criminal sanction?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 4 Feb 13 at 22:47
|
>> You're missing the point.
No I'm not. I fully understand it.
I think however that requiring the keeper to say who was driving is a proportionate response to the problem posed by excessive speed or other motoring offences. Caught on CCTV dropping a gic but? It could be anybody. Driving my car is one of three people insured.
The driver has all the same defences available as if he was stopped on site by a car or radar trap.
|
>> I think however that requiring the keeper to say who was driving is a proportionate response to the problem posed by excessive speed or other motoring offences
So one of the fundamental tenets of criminal law can be discarded since a £60 fine and 3 points is of such overwhelming importance to the State?
Nah :-)
As I said earlier - guy admits his guilt in a robbery but won't speak up about the identity of his accomplices... scores a little higher on the Richter scale of criminality.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 4 Feb 13 at 23:14
|
>>
>> Where else does the accused need to admit to a crime (or offer sufficient evidence
>> otherwise not provided by a prosecuting authority) or suffer a criminal sanction?
>>
Company directors are responsible for their firm's actions even if they had nothing personally to do with the offence and were entire ignorant of it.
A ship's master is responsible even if he is down below asleep.
You are responsible for damage caused by your dog or livestock regardless of whether you personally let them out.
It's pretty general - if you own something that is potentially dangerous you have a responsibility to keep it in check and take responsibilty for anyone you entrust it to.
|
Lygonos is right.
There might not be a law that states you have to record who is driving...but..
...if you don't tell the authorities who was driving when you get an NIP, you cop 6 points and a fine for failing to say who.....which is another way of doing it and is similar to a law stating you should record it.
In most other aspects of the law a suspect is entitled to keep schtum so as not to incriminate themselves... and the State has to prove you've done wrong...except for speeding and similar where you are obliged to tell who was the driver..and therefore incriminate yourself.
It is an important point to make, because it is actually a huge loss of liberty.
A bit like seizing uninsured cars when someone is innocent..(only the good that has done has allowed me to override my concerns about the loss of liberties... I cannot say the same for speed cameras)...
|
>> >> After a camera flash the keeper is required to say who was driving.
>>
>> Why? Other than parliament said so.
>>
>> Where else in criminal law must one self-incriminate?
>>
ECHR has ruled on that one, you make the choice when you get into the car, you don't want to self incriminate don't drive. Your choice.
|
>> >> Where else in criminal law must one self-incriminate?
>> >>
>>
Self incrimination is nothing new. When HMRC tell you they think the two grand you paid into your bank account must have been taxable earnings try asking them to prove it. If you can't come up with a provable explanation they'll just take their whack anyway with full legal backing.
|
That's taxation, not criminal law.
Once it goes to criminal court the Taxman has to prove his case (see also Hodgson Bungs).
And with respect to the ECHR the reason the prevention of self-incrimination originally arose was to stop torture or duress forcing confessions out of people.
In the case of 'who was driving?' the penalty for not answering is worse than the offence itself and may lead people who genuinely don't know to take the rap (= perverting the course of justice) or go to court to argue that they don't know and be hit with a bigger stick.
|
Brompton>> As others say this is not about speeding it's about lying to avoid the consequences.
Up to a point. Because the problem is that the consequences of a moment's inattention, four times, over a three year period, is the loss of a driving licence. Not to defend inattention. But it's an incredibly blunt instrument with dreadful consequences for the victim - er, sorry, criminal - and it is the disproportion that makes it bad law.
Robin>> I know a few people who have done exactly the same, and there was a
>> time in my life when I would have done the same myself.
I find it difficult to believe that people who break the law share this with third parties. Are they pleased with themselves when they repeat the tale; or penitential; or what? Or just plain foolish?
|
The censorious tone adopted by some here suggests that a lot of people think it's a sign of slobbishness or carelessness to keep getting clocked by speed cameras. But not everyone has our cunning and precise speed awareness. Both take years to develop anyway.
Perhaps so, but it is certainly very irksome - and dangerous - to have to worry about jumping, or not jumping, through some randomly placed hoop at short irregular intervals. Hooner quite clearly was a very busy, driven guy at the time.
Personally I think it's idiotic to ban someone from driving without evidence that they are actually dangerous. A lot of people who never alert a speed camera are absolutely lethal as any fule kno, and most people who get on with it aren't. Nevertheless busy distracted people who aren't dangerous are banned and seriously inconvenienced because of totting up, and smug dangerous mimsers are left at large.
All because of raucous idiot safety wonks who think 'speed' is dangerous, and politicians on all levels who suck up to them.
|
This whole thing is wrong on so many levels. I've just sat and read the whole lot of texts in the links above.Those text messages yell me the son is hurt and angry at his Dad, vindictive and wanting revenge.
Too young though, to realise that revenge can't be taken without also implicating his Mum.
The Dad appears to love and care very much for his son, whatever insults he throws back at him.
Do any of us recognise this situation after a marriage break up?
It happens all the time to ordinary people and never makes the news.
Is he arrogant? Yes of course he is, believing he doesn't have to abide by the law and drive like a nun because of the state of his licence makes him more so.
Perverting the course of justice can be a serious crime but it should never hold a custodial sentence in this sort of circumstance.
Our prisons are already bursting with people who could be punished in a far more effective way.
A sad case of a broken family all with it seems, a vindictive nature and a desire for revenge.
Money doesn't buy happiness.
Pat
|
The actual 'perversion' of course appears to have happened at a time when the family were apparently a functional unit.
Subsequent acts from 2011 onwards are an attempt to cover the tracks, ultimately doomed to fail.
Whether he falls on his sword fully, and corroborates his ex-wife's story of 'marital coercion' may be an act of 'honour' after his fall, or simply a further perversion of the justice system if she indeed wilfully committed the offence - her trial continues I believe.
|
>>Our prisons are already bursting with people who could be punished in a far more effective way.
Absolutely. There must be a ton of alternatives that would both force some awareness onto Huhne and from which the country could benefit.
As opposed to paying yet more money out to keep him in prison.
I should think a few months of graffitti clearing would focus his mind quite well.
|
"Hooner quite clearly was a very busy, driven guy"
I thought he admitted he wasn't driven :-)
|
>> Up to a point. Because the problem is that the consequences of a moment's inattention,
>> four times, over a three year period, is the loss of a driving licence. Not
>> to defend inattention. But it's an incredibly blunt instrument with dreadful consequences for the victim
>> - er, sorry, criminal - and it is the disproportion that makes it bad law.
One moments inattention may be regarded as misfortune; two looks like carelessness.
This guy had three within 14 months then copped a fourth, the subject of the extant case. In the same time frame he was also stopped for using a hand-held mobile in London.
Careless and impatient; deserves a ban to remind him who's in charge.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 5 Feb 13 at 10:21
|
I don't think anyone gives a toss that he swapped the points - despite the fact that it's (technically) a serious offence. Can't say that I definitely wouldn't consider doing the same if my livelihood depended on it and I had no other options.
No, what makes me quite pleased that he's being locked up for a bit is that he told bald-faced lies about the matter for the last two years. Position of responsibility etc.
|
>>Careless and impatient; deserves a ban to remind him who's in charge.
I have more sympathy with AC's view - to get a 6 month ban without any serious suggestion that you pose any danger is very silly and unjust. If we must stick with this stupid system then a month's ban would be plenty unless there are aggravating circumstances.
It is possible to be unlucky, and susceptibility is greatly affected by the roads you drive on, and the miles you drive.
|
>>>My view, do something wrong - cough it and move on...... I despise speed cameras and or vans - blunt instruments. I break the law at my risk - I get caught I pay the consequences.
I don't despise speed cameras but otherwise spot on RP.
>>>This guy had three within 14 months then copped a fourth, the subject of the extant case. In the same time frame he was also stopped for using a hand-held mobile in London. Careless and impatient; deserves a ban to remind him who's in charge.
Agreed... it is perfectly possible to drive briskly year in year out without attracting the attention of cameras or traffic police. Knowing the existance of speed limits and cameras then having that reinforced by prosecution makes it madness or arrogance to continue in the same way as this guy did.
We've just had several months dealing with two MP's. One has remained free of trouble throughout his career and had a superb attitude of "I'm here to serve".
The other has recently been in the media for creative expense accounting (just staying the right side of the law but arrogant and money grabbing from a moral viewpoint) meaning I was wary of dealing with them. That MP was equally equally arrogant in considering our issue and not an ounce of public service spirit present in their attitude.
Quite happy to see the dodgy MPs weeded out however unlucky/unjust some see the camera/declared driver issue.
|
|
To get 12 points in fourteen months you're not unlucky, you're a prat.
|
|
I've not personally known anyone who has accrued more than six points.
|
|
I had nine for a while, years ago now.
|
|
I managed three way back in the 70s in a company Cortina.
|
|
I managed nine in one hit. Thats 3/4 of my entire total in 40 years driving.
|
|
Clean license since 1977. Which is not to say I never speed. Observation and a good dose of luck have been in my favour.
|
Never had a point on my license since I got it in 1992. Been nabbed for speeding once (last year) which was 34 in a 30 and first offence, so I was offered a Speed Awareness Course, which I took.
Considering I did 30-35k a year for 10 years, and rode sportsbikes for a few years as well, there is definitely a degree of luck involved in my license status.
Last edited by: DP on Tue 5 Feb 13 at 12:37
|
|
I nearly got to nine. I was flashed at 34 (I think) in a 30, already had 6 points from two previous flashes. But on this occasion I got the speed awareness course. All points have long since expired, I've learnt my lesson about observation......
|
|
Clean since 1973! and hoping to keep it that way.
|
>> Clean since 1973! and hoping to keep it that way.
>>
Sorry
Clean since 1963! 50 years points free and hoping to keep it that way.
|
>>I managed three way back in the 70s in a company Cortina.
Actually, I did sail rather close to the wind only a few weeks after the above, as I was stopped early one morning doing around 35 on a suburban road. The traffic officer gave me a polite ticking off and told me to present my documents to the local nick.
Unfortunately, I had forgotten that my MOT had expired just a week earlier.
|
>>
>> Unfortunately, I had forgotten that my MOT had expired just a week earlier.
>>
What happened?
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, I had forgotten that my MOT had expired just a week earlier.
>> >>
>>
>> What happened?
He forgot.
|
|
He thought he was above the law as an MEP/MP/Cabinet Minister and he was caught...........so no sympathy to a habitual speeder and he will pay A PRICE - fine/porridge/ban BUT this is secondary to loss of public reputation / stature in society / falling out with his son etc etc
|
What niggles me most about speed cameras, is constantly having to watch out for the darned things when travelling on roads with so many differing speed limits. Perhaps I should invest in a decent satnav.
And, don't mention local politicians of the woolly persuasion who take it upon themselves to wield speed cameras, and who would have us all driving around at 20 mph.
|
|
Clk Sec - if you go the Sat Nav route do not, under any circumstances go for a new Tom Tom, in particular the "Live" Series. They are expensive electronic junk IMO. Garmin are much better right now
|
I was indeed thinking of a Garmin, as I seem to remember that Zero was not too happy with his most recent Tom Tom.
Thanks, Meldrew.
|
>> I was indeed thinking of a Garmin, as I seem to remember that Zero was
>> not too happy with his most recent Tom Tom.
It drove me to a rant I think. Its still my primary sat nav, but will be my last TT device. Pity really because the routing is best by miles.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 5 Feb 13 at 13:47
|
|
SFAIK Garmins are coming with a free maps updates for life service as a special offer, right now. TT maps are £36 a year for 4 updates
|
I received my fist full licence in 1964.
Points? What are they?
If they are awaqded for good drivers, I have utterly failed....
|
>>What Happened.
£10 fine only. Well, it was a long time ago.
>>He forgot.
Can't argue with that!
Last edited by: Clk Sec on Tue 5 Feb 13 at 13:58
|
I got an endorsement in '66 IIRC, but never had any points.
For a short while I had a job delivering vehicles. Many of the employees were self-employed and paid on a job basis, which meant the more they delivered the more they were paid. It seemed to me they mostly had points and were dependant on their sat-nav alerts to warn of speed cameras. I quit after several one ton plus adventures as a passenger.
|
:)
I asked what happened because when I had a producer (not in the Ronnie Corbett sense you understand) after my Major Accident I duly, er, produced, but still had a letter from the CPS saying they would charge me for not doing so. Took a number of phone calls and letters, before they wrote again and very graciously agreed I had in fact produced, so out of the goodness of their hearts they had reviewed the case and decided not to proceed, which I thought generous. They did still proceed with the "driving without due care" bit though.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Tue 5 Feb 13 at 14:35
|
I detect a bit of smugness here and there. It's in the nature of the randomness that of a large group of reasonably sensible people trying not to set off a speed camera, many will be successful.
Others won't. Nothing is more certain than that some of the virgins will get points eventually.
I managed to get to 2012 without triggering a camera, then tripped up twice in in a month. It can happen, all it takes is the holes in the cheese of circumstance to line up.
What I find unjust is that it punishes the steady driver who is essentially safe and materially compliant - generally observant, accident free people who drive considerately and to the conditions, while blatant and wilful speeders can get away with it if they slow down for the cameras.
Nobody in their right mind would misfuel either, but plenty do and I dare say one or two of the clean licence squad have done that.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 5 Feb 13 at 15:00
|
>>Nothing is more certain than that some of the virgins will get points eventually.
There but for the grace of God, etc.
Once you've tripped up twice in a month, then you're only allowed to speed once more in the next three years. It's very disproportionate.
Apparently 0.25m drivers are banned each year under the totting up method. If you assume 50m drivers, then you have a 1 in 200 chance of being banned each year. So assuming a driving career of 50 years, then one in four drivers will have been banned under this method by the time they die.
Crazy.
When I run the country, speeding fines will be based on income/wealth. A week's salary/income?
|
>> When I run the country, speeding fines will be based on income/wealth. A week's salary/income?
>>
Except that a rock star or a Premiership footballer wouldn't even notice the loss of a weeks wages whereas someone on minimum wage could be pushed into bankruptcy.
|
"Apparently 0.25m drivers are banned each year under the totting up method. If you assume 50m drivers, then you have a 1 in 200 chance of being banned each year. So assuming a driving career of 50 years, then one in four drivers will have been banned under this method by the time they die."
Only if the allocations of points of to drivers is completely random.
It may well that those who have collected enough to be banned are much more likely than other driver to collect even more points when or even before their ban expires. Indeed I would say this is quite likely to be the case since if you learned nothing from collecting nine points on you licence you won't learn much from having 12 even if you do get banned.
|
>>
>> Nobody in their right mind would misfuel either, but plenty do and I dare say
>> one or two of the clean licence squad have done that.
>>
Yes..
|
I forget the figures but an awful lot of drivers are allowed to keep their licences even after totting up 12 points or more, by pleading sepcial circumstances, etc. Hoon may well have qualified for the same treatment if he had admitted he was driving from day 1. Or he could have hired a chauffeur with his £millions.
I bet he is *really* regretting his actions now, with jail looming, and a career in tatters, most of all not on speaking terms with his son.
|
>> jail looming, and a career in tatters, most of all not on speaking terms with his son.
It's a very sad story. I would think the ex is regretting her part in it too.
Professional politicians usually have a tough carapace - they need it for moments of public upset, unexpected electoral defeats and so on. It is thought admirable to keep a straight face, or nearly so, under those circumstances.
But the correspondence with the son shouldn't have been published in my opinion, it's just awful. People say that sort of thing and worse to each other in the heat of the moment. But they don't usually write it down and they usually soon regret it. This is near-tragic stuff.
Of course the boy was defending his mother who had been dumped. Obviously must have been terrible for him too.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 5 Feb 13 at 16:25
|
There's more stuff coming out now AC. Her trial today has heard recordings of her phone conversations trying to get him to admit what had happened.Recording with assitance of the reptile reporter she was briefing.
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/05/vicky-pryce-chris-huhne-court
Includes her referring to Carina Trimingham as his 'man'.
Nobody will come out of this smelling of roses.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 5 Feb 13 at 16:34
|
Huhne baulks at £100K prosecution costs and reportedly offers £25,000
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22250665
|
|
Exs are mean, money grubbing, vindictive harpies who regret nothing! An acquaintance of mine was on 6 points and her husband was on 9; he got a ticket and she took the points. Then she got a ticket = 12 points and a 6 month ban. I might that they were in Brustrom country with cameras hidden in horse boxes etc!
|
- He would appear to be a bit of an plum as a driver.
- He tried to dodge points when caught speeding
- She took the points to help her husband.
- He had an affair (who knows what the marriage was like)
- She feels bitter, betrayed and scorned and wants her own back
- In the face of accusations, he tried to deny it until he hod no choice but to face it
- She is trying to dig herself out of it
- children suffer.
I can't see anything in there to generate any feelings of superiority or rage in another human being living in the real world.
I can;t seen anything in there to which I wouldn't say "there but for the grace of God...."
Both of them will come out of this worse off, both in reality and in reputation & perception.
In truth, neither of them did anything exceptional or exceptionally bad.
I think he should be punished, although in a useful way.
I think the world should otherwise keep out of their personal life and stop with the holier than thou crap.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 12 Feb 13 at 12:20
|
That's the best post I can remember you making FMR.
Although Hooner will be 'punished' though, he has already punished himself far more severely. I wouldn't feel it was wrong just to give him a fine.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 5 Feb 13 at 17:24
|
How much would you fine a millionaire?
The man was part of a government overseeing a justice system where prison is the usual punishment for perjury. No sympathy.
|
|
I recall when Huhne and Clegg were contesting the LibDem leadership some years ago and were taking part in a TV programme. Huhne took the opportunity to tear into Clegg in a quite nasty and vicious manner - my late wife described him as one of the nastiest men she had ever come across.
|
>>How much would you fine a millionaire?
Surely you don't believe that fines should be means tested?
Therefore the little scroat who has nothing and who simply cannot be bothered to obey the law will be fined 75p every time he gets caught whereas you, as a normally law abiding but unfortunately slightly more solvent person, will be fined £200 the first time you're caught?
Surely a fine should be related to the crime, not the criminal? If speeding is a £60 offence, then its a £60 offence. Same as jail sentances for murder.
Personally I don't see the value of fines as a punishment, they're related to compensation and revenge.
Penalties should be useful, objective and forceful.
He should be cleaning up graffiti or similar.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 12 Feb 13 at 12:20
|
>> Penalties should be useful, objective and forceful.
>>
>> He should be cleaning up graffiti or similar.
>>
Under normal circumstances I'd agree with you. But Huhne was a government minister, as I've already said he was part of an establishment which regards loss of liberty as the normal sentence for perjury so he should himself have to suffer that.
If he himself thinks it's harsh, he had plenty of time to do something about it during the past few years.
|
>> I can't see anything in there to generate any feelings of superiority or rage in
>> another human being living in the real world.
>>
>> I can;t seen anything in there to which I wouldn't say "there but for the
>> grace of God...."
>>
>> Both of them will come out of this worse off, both in reality and in
>> reputation & perception.
>>
>> In truth, neither of them did anything exceptional or exceptionally bad.
>>
>> I think he should be punished, although in a useful way.
>>
>> I think the world should otherwise keep out of their personal life and stop with
>> the holier than thou crap.
>>
I'd agree with all that, wholeheartedly, if he wasn't a 'do as I say not as I do' politician. In which case I'll be sat here laughing my nads off at the smug berk's downfall.
If right at the beginning he'd been 'no comment' or 'I don't discuss anything in my private life' it might have been different. It wasn't though, was it. He was a minister and chose to lie his head off, frequently.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 12 Feb 13 at 12:19
|
Westpig & RR,
I think you misunderstand me;
I most certainly do not believe that he should be treated leniently in anyway.
Prison deprives him of liberty, not much else, and not for very long. And it costs us loads.
Fining him is pointless.
Cleaning graffiti off the walls in public should shame him, be hard work, and profit us rather than cost us.
And I don't mean doing it for a day here or there, I mean 3 - 6 months of 40 hour weeks.
Its the self-righteousness of the general public that annoys me, as well as the cost of the prison system.
Last edited by: Webmaster on Tue 12 Feb 13 at 12:18
|
Archer got 4 years.
Aitken got 18 months
Both for perjury..
I think the lesson has not been learned.
20 years...:-)
Last edited by: madf on Tue 5 Feb 13 at 19:17
|
Perjury is being mentioned.
Has Hooner lied under oath in court? I'm not entirely clear about that. Initial plea is not given under oath is it?
As instinct told me, he seems a horrid chap. But the whole thing has gone so spectacularly pear-shaped, slowly and under the full glare of the media, that one can't help feeling some human sympathy. I can't anyway.
Perhaps this is the 'pity and fear' allegedly inspired by classical tragedy. Certainly this business has some of the same qualities including the hero's hubris or fatal pride.
|
>> Perjury is being mentioned.
>>
>> Has Hooner lied under oath in court? I'm not entirely clear about that. Initial plea
>> is not given under oath is it?
>>
You're probably right there, but perverting the course of justice probably carries the same smack in the gob, sentence speaking.
|
>> >> Perjury is being mentioned.
>> >>
>> >> Has Hooner lied under oath in court? I'm not entirely clear about that. Initial
>> plea
>> >> is not given under oath is it?
>> >>
>>
>> You're probably right there, but perverting the course of justice probably carries the same smack
>> in the gob, sentence speaking.
>>
He, basically, conspired with his wife to falsify evidence thus has perverted the course of justice to which he has, after lots of wriggling, now pleaded guilty.
As perverting the course of justice also covers such things as intimidating witnesses and jurors it is viewed as a very serious offence and as such the penalty fits, sentence ranges from 4 months to life and judges are encouraged to give suspended sentences only in exceptional cases. The crime and its level of punishment are all about the credibility of our justice system and therefore tends not to be treated lightly by the judiciary.
I fully expect he would be well advised to take more than one tooth brush to court with him, he might wear one out before the end of his sentence.
|
The crime and its level of punishment are all about the credibility
>> of our justice system and therefore tends not to be treated lightly by the judiciary.
Our justice system has lost all credibility. If you are going to throw the "perverting" book at someone who lies about a speeding fine, you should, quite logically, charge everyone who pleads not guilty in court with perjury or perverting if they are found guilty. And of course every witness who appeared for the prosecution should also be so charged if found not guilty.
Perverting the course of justice is being abused here as a one way ticket. Frankly, while I have no sympathy or understanding for speeders who don't take the punishment, and don't like Huhne for being a worm and a snake, I hope he gets off.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 6 Feb 13 at 13:45
|
>> Our justice system has lost all credibility. If you are going to throw the "perverting"
>> book at someone who lies about a speeding fine, you should, quite logically, charge everyone
>> who pleads not guilty in court with perjury or perverting if they are found guilty.
>> And of course every witness who appeared for the prosecution should also be so charged
>> if found not guilty.
Really?
I'd be prepared to accept that the reporting of judgements and sentencing by the media create a credibilty gap. That gap can be closed by reading the judgement but of course most citizens lack the time or motivation. I have to scan published cases everyday as a few need disseminating in the course of my work. the differnce form what's in the papers is stunning.
Last weeks case about use of 'spent' convictions when CRB checks are made was a case in point. The Mail for one presented it as a licence for thugs and rapists to be nursery assitants. In fact the court threw out the one serious crime case - carjacking - stating the disclosure was proportionate. It was not for historic one off shoplifitng and a caution for messing with stolen bikes as a youth.
The plea is not taken on oath. Neither are the lawyers or for that matter the self represented defendant while making submissions to the judge. Only when avidence is to be given does the usher or clerk adminster the oath.
Prosecuting all found guilty would be barmy. There are plenty of cases where law determines whether certain actions constitute a crime. The defendant may have a strongly held belief in his own case but not convince the jury. That's why such prosecutions are held to be not in the public interest.
In truly egregious cases where the judge beleives evidence was a tissue of lies sentence can reflect that without dragging everybody back at great expense on a later date.
Swapping points is perverting the course. Lower end of seriousness so CH will get a year or so not life. But it's still serious.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 6 Feb 13 at 14:12
|
>> Swapping points is perverting the course. Lower end of seriousness so CH will get a
>> year or so not life. But it's still serious.
Sharing speeding points is not in the least bit serious. Getting your mates to lie to a none existent alibi to cover a serious assault, and get away with it, is.
Thats why our justice is perverse. W'ell have to disagree.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 6 Feb 13 at 14:17
|
Zero and Bromp..you are both right.
The reason why Huhne and others get the book thrown at them is falsifying evidence for a court goes against the whole fabric of what our court system is about, so in some respects (in theory) it is right to protect it with hefty sentences.
Trouble is, this often affects people who otherwise are perfectly good lawful citizens who have done something unwise.
The other side of the scale has the true criminal use the system to their advantage and lie their heads off at every opportunity..and the system intentionally turns a blind eye to it.
This of course somewhat galls the decent, because yet again the oik gets away with it.
A good example is a follower of one specific religion, albeit in this case a crook, who would not wish to lie on oath using his holy book, will 'affirm' when asked to swear on oath, thereby not going against his holy book. Now over and above any moral viewpoint on why anyone who is supposedly religious would commit crime or lie in court, the whole system fails when this happens...yet it is fairly well known within the system...and nowt is done about it...and nowt will be done about.
Which means the whole system is a tad hypocritical when Mr or Mrs Average do something daft that they haven't thought through properly and end up done for perverting the course of justice.
Mrs and Mrs Huhne do not fit my definition of Mr and Mrs Average though.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 6 Feb 13 at 18:53
|
>> A good example is a follower of one specific religion, albeit in this case a
>> crook, who would not wish to lie on oath using his holy book, will 'affirm'
>> when asked to swear on oath, thereby not going against his holy book. Now over
>> and above any moral viewpoint on why anyone who is supposedly religious would commit crime
>> or lie in court, the whole system fails when this happens...yet it is fairly well
>> known within the system...and nowt is done about it...and nowt will be done about.
I'm guessing the 'crook' in this case was a Muslim but maybe he was a Catholic.
What could you do about it though?
The problem is not about oaths but about the fact that someone lied. Should we force him to take an oath on the Koran (or Bible)?
If I had to give evidence as an unbeliever I'd affirm. Does that degrade the status of my evidence unless I first satisfy the court about mt beleif systems?
|
Not sure about the swearing on a bible bit.
If I am prepared to lie in the first place, then I guess I'm not much of a christian anyway, so would lying on the Bible particularly bother me?
|
>> Not sure about the swearing on a bible bit.
>>
>> If I am prepared to lie in the first place, then I guess I'm not
>> much of a christian anyway, so would lying on the Bible particularly bother me?
>>
You are missing the point. It bothers some with one specific religion. I'd agree it's hypocritical, but that's not the point either.
|
>> I'm guessing the 'crook' in this case was a Muslim but maybe he was a
>> Catholic.
I have deliberately not gone in to specifics..because...it's a minefield that some would presume the poster (me in this case) has an agenda, issues with that religion or is just plain racist.
I happen to think it's more realist than racist...and think it's a remarkable lack of free speech.
Nevertheless, that's the way it is, that element of my post was one small part of it and I don't wish it to detract from the main part..so anonymous it remains.
>>
>> What could you do about it though?
Simple. Have all forms of proven lying in court prosecuted to its fullest extent.
>>
>> The problem is not about oaths but about the fact that someone lied. Should we
>> force him to take an oath on the Koran (or Bible)?
>>
>> If I had to give evidence as an unbeliever I'd affirm. Does that degrade the
>> status of my evidence unless I first satisfy the court about mt beleif systems?
My post was intended to show the contempt that some show the court system i.e. they value their holy book...so rather than offend it by lying, affirm instead. I propose no system that regulates holy books, just punishes those that lie.
|
The bible thing is an archaic hangover that really has no place in modern justice and merely confused things.
Make them sign or acknowledge the penalties of lying should be sufficient.
|
>>I think the lesson has not been learned.
20 years...:-)
Now there is an interesting idea. That should get his attention .
Afteer aweating for a while he could then on appeal hopefully reduce it to Archer plus 2 years.
I hope he has to pay our costs too.
Last edited by: henry k on Tue 5 Feb 13 at 19:38
|
By Election to be on 28 Feb: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21349422
About as quick as it can be I think. Parties to select candidates in next few days.
Farage 'frit' apparently; he's not standing.
|
>> Farage 'frit' apparently; he's not standing.
>>
Too scared of losing his cushy number in Europe, I imagine.
|
Not to mention that at the current exchange rate his MEP salary is £81, 585 compared with MPs, paid £65, 378. With the £25000 salary EU pay to his wife, generous EU allowances, and low EU tax, can't see anything in it for Nigel. He'll have to lead from behind if he wants out.....
|
Chris Huhne trial on Monday. - Manatee
