Breaking news on BBC:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21496566
Sentence to be dealt with later.
|
|
Could sentance her to a year in a cell with Chris Huhne :-)
|
Common sense prevails at last.
Pat
|
|
Petty bureaucratic vindictiveness, more like.
|
now here is a conundrum
Following that case, spelling out that if you cough to crimes you have not committed its PTCoJ, is anyone jailed for a false confession, and then released when its found out, liable to be throw back in jail for perverting the course of justice?
|
>> now here is a conundrum
>>
>> Following that case, spelling out that if you cough to crimes you have not committed
>> its PTCoJ, is anyone jailed for a false confession, and then released when its found
>> out, liable to be throw back in jail for perverting the course of justice?
>>
I hope so.
|
>> now here is a conundrum
>>
>> Following that case, spelling out that if you cough to crimes you have not committed
>> its PTCoJ, is anyone jailed for a false confession, and then released when its found
>> out, liable to be throw back in jail for perverting the course of justice?
If the motive for false confession was money or some other advantage then yes.
However, such cases are vanishingly rare. All of the causes celebre of false confessions have involved combinations of threats/coercion by police and vulnerability or physical/mental frailty by the confessor.
In those circs he's a victim and rightly walks with compensation.
|
>> Petty bureaucratic vindictiveness, more like.
On whose part? Vicky Pryce's I assume.
So blinded by hate, so thought she'd get a big dish of cold revenge, and instead she's going to get a big bowl of porridge.
|
>> Could sentance her to a year in a cell with Chris Huhne :-)
They deserve each other.
|
>>They deserve each other <<
That they do. You could send them both to a party with this lot instead though:
order-order.com/2013/03/06/another-libdem-sex-scandal-2/
Vicky Pryce in bubble wrap, the mind boggles.
|
|
Who is the man holding up a sign every time Vicky Pryce appears outside the court and what is he on about?
|
>> Who is the man holding up a sign every time Vicky Pryce appears outside the
>> court and what is he on about?
>>
Stuart Holmes
tinyurl.com/c6w68ng
|
>> >> Who is the man holding up a sign every time Vicky Pryce appears outside
>> the
>> >> court and what is he on about?
>> >>
>> Stuart Holmes
>>
>> tinyurl.com/c6w68ng
Holmes says we are facing global extinction.
The dog is not so sure. The dog's sign says "possible global extinction".
This is pretty basic and quite serious. Surely they should agree?
|
She is a piece of work isnt she? I can see how she was attracted to Huhne now.
Oakeshott isnt looking too good either, what a vile bunch they all are.
|
She is promised porridge. But Hooner himself will get more.
He asked for it. She should have thought twice before letting him have it. I am not the only person to see it as an agonizingly slow classical tragedy.
'They laughed when I said I'd nail the carphound. They're really rolling in the aisles now.'
I'm not though. It's a very sad story, if tasty to a heartless old news addict.
|
Plagiarised with pride from another forum:
Confucius said (allegedly) "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 7 Mar 13 at 20:42
|
Another, slightly more predictable:) "Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive."
Walter Scott.
|
The Huhne/Pryce saga, with all its sadness and stench, may well have almost run its course, but its legacy may be only just beginning.
Pryce has dropped senior Lib Dems in it, including Mrs Clegg and the supposedly cleaner-than-clean Vince Cable, by claiming to a Sunday Times journalist that they knew the truth all along.
Note to NIL: Well done for correctly attributing the quotation to Scott, not Shakespeare.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Fri 8 Mar 13 at 10:33
|
|
Shakespeare would have made it scan properly.
|
>>
>>
>> Confucius said (allegedly) "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."
>>
>>
>>
No, that was Clint Eastwood.
|
>> Could sentance her to a year in a cell with Chris Huhne :-)
Be far cheaper to put them in a room in a Travelodge together. They wouldn't try to escape. But yes, agree that would be far more sensible than jail for them.
|
>>>> Could sentance her to a year in a cell with Chris Huhne :-)
The maximum sentence is life. One has to wonder if it is worth it for the sake of 3 points and £60?
|
Two educated and well off adults who knew exactly what the consequences of perjury are. If he had lost his licence for a few months he could have employed a driver (can't be bothered to look up how to spell showfur) out of his small change.
I think she'll get longer than him, her deceit was on a greater scale.
|
>> I think she'll get longer than him, her deceit was on a greater scale.
I'm not seeing it in quite such a black/white sense. The fact that she took his points against her better judgement but short of marital coercion doesn't necessarily mean she's a scheming liar.
His conduct in trying every legal trick to wriggle of the hook before pleading guilty at the last possible moment isn't going to do him any favours.
|
>> The fact that she took
>> his points against her better judgement but short of marital coercion doesn't necessarily mean she's
>> a scheming liar.
But... the evidence in the emails suggests she cooked up her story with Oakeshott. Not good. Probably a big factor in the jury's decision. She might get some sympathy for the the effect on her state of mind of Hooner's deserting her I suppose.
>> His conduct in trying every legal trick to wriggle of the hook before pleading guilty
>> at the last possible moment isn't going to do him any favours.
And the fact that the underlying offence was his.
What do you think they'll get?
|
>> >>but short of marital coercion doesn't necessarily mean she's
>> a scheming liar.
>>
I've just read that the defence of marital coercion is shortly to be ditched. It only applies to coercion of a wife by a husband (promise to obey), so doesn't fit into a modern world of equality, civil partnership and same-sex marriage.
I loved the Mat cartoon "I'm a traditionalist. I think driving points should only be transferred between a man and a woman".
|
>> I've just read that the defence of marital coercion is shortly to be ditched. It
>> only applies to coercion of a wife by a husband (promise to obey), so doesn't
>> fit into a modern world of equality, civil partnership and same-sex marriage.
A mere 36 years after the Law Commission recommended its abolition. And sadly, I doubt that's a record. Law reform without political whizz-bang content never gets much attention.
|
>> If he had lost his licence for a few months he could have employed a driver ... out of his small change.
Apart from the loss of his career, he has spent £250,000 on his lawyers and the CPS are likley to go after him for another £100,000.
She of course was the catalyst for the roof falling in. She was being lined up for membership of the MPC when she set events in train. On that evidence it might be a good thing she didn't make it.
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me how stupid some supposedly clever people can be.
|
|
Clever and emotions are different things.Woman scorn and married to a bully.
|
Vicky Pryce was on unpaid leave from her 6-figure salaried job for 10 months.
Yesterday she resigned.............
1 x speeding ticket
2 x careers ruined - she could have been on the BoE Monetary Committee - so a high flyer
2 x families ruined
2 x jailed (probably) at vast expense - investigations, court time............
Probably 10's or 100's of thousands of normal punters what would happen if they split from their partner etc as I am sure loads of ordinary punters have accepted points for another relative.
|
You're right, lots of possible cases of people who've passed points around subsequently divorcing/separating and maybe falling out.
I'd expect very few dobbings-in though - it is after all MAD (mutally assured destruction). Pryce was insane to take counsel from a journalist, and insaner to follow it.
I don't expect the occasion to arise, but I'm with Stirling Moss on this - if you can share the points to avoid a ban, and not get caught, get on with it and keep quiet if you're prepared to take the risk. It wouldn't be on my conscience - bad law, utterly disproportionate penalty for four minor speeding offences.
goo.gl/Pg9zu
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 9 Mar 13 at 18:09
|
|
Tend to agree with your comment re it being a flawed law Manatee. However, I equally can't be doing with liars. Measure of a man's character and such. I can't begin to care what happens to either of them now though. Someone much cleverer than me will no doubt decide what is appropriate.
|
>> Tend to agree with your comment re it being a flawed law Manatee. However, I equally can't be doing with liars.
I don't like lying either. Apart from anything else gratuitous lying is stupid and counter-productive sooner or later. All other things being equal, the truth is by far the best propaganda.
But... white lies to be kind, and quietly taking someone's speeding points for them, don't really count as 'lying' in that sense. It's a bit mean, but not really despicable. Needs must when the devil drives.
Vicky Pryce and her nemesis, the frightful Sunday Times hack, decided to tell the truth for the worst of reasons and with the worst of results. Worse than some lying really.
Funny old world innit.
|
>> utterly disproportionate penalty for four minor speeding offences.
>>
>>
The penalty has NOTHING to do with speeding offences. They have been found guilty of perjury, an offence regarded very seriously as they were both well aware.
If you can't do the time, etc...
|
|
I think you've probably put it better than I did RR. It's not the rectitude of our laws re speeding which has been on test it's the honour of the individuals concerned which has been found wanting.
|
>> The penalty has NOTHING to do with speeding offences. They have been found guilty of
>> perjury, an offence regarded very seriously as they were both well aware.
>>
I wasn't clear. 6 months ban is disproportionate, where there is no reference to any danger caused, certainly when compared to "proper" offences.
And I agree with Humph about liars. I just don't think it counts.
Integrity in business, and in personal relationships, is established by many acts and lost by one.
Technical offences computed by machine are irrelevant and should be dodged if possible.
|
>>
>> I wasn't clear. 6 months ban is disproportionate, where there is no reference to any
>> danger caused, certainly when compared to "proper" offences.
>>
Perhaps the courts think that anybody who collects four separate tickets inside three years is too stupid to hold a licence?
|
>> Perhaps the courts think that anybody who collects four separate tickets inside three years is
>> too stupid to hold a licence?
The courts think nothing of the kind. It's mandatory.
I might have more sympathy with your point of I thought it was only ever made by people who never speed. But we know that's not true.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 9 Mar 13 at 19:31
|
>>
>> The courts think nothing of the kind. It's mandatory.
>>
No, the court can impose another penalty if a ban would have an adverse effect on someone's circumstances.
As a mate of mine can testify.
|
|
I stand corrected. I believe it's prescribed.
|
>> The courts think nothing of the kind. It's mandatory.
>>
>> I might have more sympathy with your point of I thought it was only ever
>> made by people who never speed. But we know that's not true.
A presumption towards a ban for multiple speeding offences ain't new. Our next door neighbour got just that c1965 for repeated offences in his MGB. And the Police visited him regularly to make sure he complied.
|
>> A presumption towards a ban for multiple speeding offences ain't new. Our next door neighbour
>> got just that c1965 for repeated offences in his MGB. And the Police visited him
>> regularly to make sure he complied.
There were no speed cameras in 1965. Completely different case.
|
>> There were no speed cameras in 1965. Completely different case.
Mr Dunn was caught by Coppers in a car or with a primitive radar trap. I suppose he might have been let off if he passed the attitude test but otherwise I'm struggling to see the difference.
|
Thread drift alert ! ( well what do you expect, it's me again ! )
Begs the question, how exactly does one petition for a change of law? If, for example, you believe ( as indeed I do ) that the speeding laws could be improved by allowing 80 mph on dry, quiet, day-lit or lamp-lit motorways ( the technology exists to vary the speed limit according to prevailing traffic, visibility and weather conditions ) and that in some urban residential circumstances that 20mph would be appropriate ( instead of wretched speed humps maybe ) then how would you represent that view in a way in which it might be given serious and official consideration?
Maybe you write to your MP? Right Honourable versions or otherwise I guess...
|
>> Thread drift alert ! ( well what do you expect, it's me again ! )
>>
>> Begs the question, how exactly does one petition for a change of law?
You'd need to lobby your MP and a strong feeling of public support. Despite the fact that most of us here agree with you I think the public at large don't really care and for every one in favour there will be another who loudly disagrees.
While it isn't a vote winner there is little chance I'm afraid.
|
>> They have been found guilty of perjury, an offence regarded very seriously as they were both well aware.
I don't think so. They haven't lied in court under oath. They have been convicted of perverting the course of justice.
|
They've both been found guilty, and it seems probable that they both are.
It will be a serious penalty, which is nothing to do with punishing them, its to make sure that everybody else gets the idea that taking someone else's points is bad, rather than the opening of floodgates if the ultimate penalty was trivial.
Time in prison is wildly inappropriate and excessive, though.
I don't see why we should pay to keep them in jail; nasty big fine and onerous and distasteful community service would seem far more appropriate.
|
>>nasty big fine and onerous and distasteful community service would seem far more appropriate.
Big Fine + all Investigation & Court Costs - say £500K
Community Service - Street cleaning in Eastleigh for 10 x Sat & Sundays - 2 x brushes & a shared cart
|
>> Time in prison is wildly inappropriate and excessive, though.
>>
>> I don't see why we should pay to keep them in jail; nasty big fine
>> and onerous and distasteful community service would seem far more appropriate.
>>
Exactly what my wife and I were saying when the verdict was announced. There's precisely zero point in putting them in prison, the fine & community service would be much more of a penalty for them.
|
I disagree, Mike. Even a short prison sentence - three months, say - would be a catastrophe for anyone in the professional classes, and that's the point. The principle of justice is too fundamental for perverting it to be punished by something as light as a spot of gardening.
The two Tory JAs went to prison for the same offence, and quite rightly too. It doesn't matter how it arose; once you set yourself above the law, you have raised the stakes much higher than a speeding fine or an inconvenient story about a prostitute.
|
Agree with WdB. Prison serves three purposes; punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence.
The public view of community service is that portrayed in the media - a let off. I don't think that's actually true and Pryce and Huhne in orange jackets doing a litter pick or cleaning graffiti would do them good.
They're not going to get much rehab in a short sentence but a spell inside is a serious punishment and sends a deterrent message to the rest of the populace.
I rather hope the judge goes for both, custodial followed by 120 hrs each.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 10 Mar 13 at 08:44
|
>> Agree with WdB. Prison serves three purposes; punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence.
>>
>> The public view of community service is that portrayed in the media - a let
>> off. I don't think that's actually true and Pryce and Huhne in orange jackets doing
>> a litter pick or cleaning graffiti would do them good.
>>
>> They're not going to get much rehab in a short sentence but a spell inside
>> is a serious punishment and sends a deterrent message to the rest of the populace.
Its a pathetic knee jerk reaction by the state to a piddling little misdemeanour with no victims. Had it been a hard working normal guy trying to save his license and hence job, home and family instead of an arrogant lying politician and neurotic spurned woman, you would all be bleating a different tale.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 10 Mar 13 at 09:56
|
>> Its a pathetic knee jerk reaction by the state to a piddling little misdemeanour with
>> no victims. Had it been a hard working normal guy trying to save his license
>> and hence job, home and family instead of an arrogant lying politician and neurotic spurned
>> woman, you would all be bleating a different tale.
We have a points system for a reason. Drivers who infringe big time or who commit repeated minor infractions get taken off the road. The intention is they learn something, it's a road safety issue.
Points swapping by passes that. It's not victimless, Huhne had a disregard for speed laws and, as it subsequently turned out the one about phone's as well. You can no more allow him to get away with point swapping than with paying someone else to do his porage for him.
A normal guy worried about license/job would do what you did and be careful. At least for a bit.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 19 Mar 13 at 10:19
|
Not me, Z. The piddling (sorry, VF, should that be Michaelling?) offence, if there is one, is to fail to notice four conspicuous yellow boxes. That brings you to the justice system's notice; pay your fine, plead hardship to the court if you must, grovel to your employer and that's an end to it.
The point is that that has to be the obvious, natural and only course for an offender to take. Attempting to subvert the system is an absolute no-no and the system cannot allow people to think it's a risk worth taking. The seriousness of the original offence is neither here nor there; once you try to cheat your way out of it you're in much deeper water and that's the message the justice system has to send.
|
The damage is done. Because of their own actions, they have each lost £n00,000, their good names, and their careers.
I'd applaud a judge who was prepared to say
"Others contemplating perverting the course of justice must not infer that they will avoid prison. In this particular case, only you have suffered from your collective stupidity and you have already suffered catastrophic consequences from your actions. The public interest will not be served by a custodial sentence.
You will however pay the Crown's costs which will be far more use to the rest of us. "
There be all sorts of flak about one law for the rich etc, but that's why we have an independent judiciary. Or should.
|
"...a piddling little misdemeanour with no victims."
Ah, the old "victimless crime" argument, used to justify benefit fraud and so on.
What it really comes down to, I fear, is the modern tendency to avoid taking responsibility for one's actions. After all, why on earth should someone else take it? It's only "a piddling little misdemeanour, isn't it? So what's the problem? Oh yes - it might cost me my job.
Tough.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Sun 10 Mar 13 at 11:07
|
>>Ah, the old "victimless crime" argument, used to justify benefit fraud and so on.
Benefit fraud is theft.
Swapping speeding points isn't. In isolation it is victimless.
The exchequer will become a victim if it pays to send them to prison when they have already suffered life-ruining losses. So I suppose that is what will happen.
|
>>
>> Swapping speeding points isn't. In isolation it is victimless.
>>
>>
If a fifty year old man is caught humping a willing and sexually experienced 14 year old girl that could be classed as a victimless crime. But I suspect many here who argue that the Huhnes should get away with a rap on the knuckles wouldn't see it like that.
|
>> If a fifty year old man is caught humping a willing and sexually experienced 14
>> year old girl that could be classed as a victimless crime. But I suspect many
>> here who argue that the Huhnes should get away with a rap on the knuckles
>> wouldn't see it like that.
No I wouldn't. And your point is...?
|
>>
>> No I wouldn't. And your point is...?
>>
One which I agree with although the allegory's a bit extreme.
Two consenting people doing something they both want to do, which if undiscovered would not do direct harm to anyone else; but if discovered leads to oppobrium, public disgrace and prison for one or both.
In other words, the Eleventh Commandment; Thou Shalt Not get Caught.
|
>> The exchequer will become a victim if it pays to send them to prison when
>> they have already suffered life-ruining losses. So I suppose that is what will happen.
>>
I doubt it very much if you take a broader look. Employment has been provided either directly or indirectly by the court case, the media coverage and the by-election, all of which will generate taxes; add that to the savings from the ending of one more dishonest politician's expenses fiddles and the exchequer is likely to be in the black.
Serves them damn well right, the pair of them. Both are intelligent people who could be expected to know better.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Sun 10 Mar 13 at 11:34
|
Zero and Manatee have it right in my opinion. But it's only an opinion.
Others have allowed themselves to be carried away by cringing respect for petty road regulations, hatred of the politicians they need but don't understand or dislike for the unpleasant Huhnes. These are all irrelevant factors.
|
Blimey AC ! What are you doing up at this time of day? Wet the bed or something?
:-)
|
>> Wet the bed or something?
No such luck. The thunder of tiny hooves sprinting up and down the corridor upstairs at the crack of dawn, if you must know.
My courteous admonitions to the tot at breakfast were pooh-poohed by her mother who said she wouldn't remember. But I couldn't scream and yell because it's Mothering Sunday.
Oh God... mothering Monday tomorrow, then mothering Tuesday and so on.
|
"Others have allowed themselves to be carried away by cringing respect for petty road regulations, hatred of the politicians they need but don't understand or dislike for the unpleasant Huhnes. These are all irrelevant factors."
Swapping speeding points is "cringing respect for petty road regulations", you're saying?
I don't believe I read that.
|
>> I don't believe I read that.
You didn't!
Last edited by: Manatee on Sun 10 Mar 13 at 11:33
|
>> Agree with WdB. Prison serves three purposes; punishment, rehabilitation and deterrence.
>>
>> They're not going to get much rehab in a short sentence but a spell inside
>> is a serious punishment and sends a deterrent message to the rest of the populace.
>>
>> I rather hope the judge goes for both, custodial followed by 120 hrs each.
>>
They haven't committed a violent crime, they are no danger to the public. Does it really deter anyone who is determined to commit a serious offence? How does it help anyone to bang them up at the taxpayers expense? Surely the publicity from being found guilt is a fair old punishment in itself for those in the public eye.
|
Not violent perhaps, Mike, but - at the risk of sounding grandiloquent - if a justice system is essential to a civilized society then the offence is against civilization itself.
Imagine you're Joanne Average and Joe's fourth NIP has just hit the mat. What is going to make you think "Who's going to know?", and what will really concentrate your minds and remind you that there's only one right thing to do?
|
Rape, Murder, Assault, child abuse, theft, arson. They are crimes against a civilised society. Asking you wife to say she was driving the car to pick up an automated fixed price penalty is, not by any stretch of the imagination, a crime against civilisation itself.
People wonder why there is less and less respect for the law, the lawmakers and the law enforcers. Its because cases like this, bring them all into scorn and disrepute.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 10 Mar 13 at 17:43
|
|
The real purpose of a prison sentence is to pander to the public's desire for revenge and retribution on people it has taken a dislike to, mainly at the instigation of the popular press.
|
>> The real purpose of a prison sentence is to pander to the public's desire for
>> revenge and retribution on people it has taken a dislike to, mainly at the instigation
>> of the popular press.
What the man said, spot on.
It doesn't matter what colour you paint it, or how you try to excuse it, the above remains true.
|
>> the above remains true.
No, it isn't true.
People were being sent to jail for centuries before there was any press at all let alone a popular one. No doubt many of them deserved it.
People now are punished by the courts for offences the public knows nothing about. People who enjoy public sympathy are quite often jailed for offences they have committed. No doubt many of them deserve it, even when the public doesn't know who they are or what they have done.
'The above' isn't just not true, it's misleading rubbish.
|
Punishment has always been primarily about satisfying revenge and presenting a public spectacle.
The Romans didn't crucify people or make them fight with lions because of their commitment to justice and the principle of deterence - it was because the baying mob liked watching violent spectacles in which people met horrible deaths.
Throughout English history the mob has always enjoyed a day out to watch someone being dunked in a village pond, pelted in the stocks, or hanged, preferably with added tortures.
Mutatis mutandis, it's exactly the same now.
|
"It doesn't matter what colour you paint it, or how you try to excuse it, the above remains true."
Hardly. The primary purpose of a sentence is to deter others from committing the same deed. It always has been. That is why the Romans crucified offenders or threw them to the lions. That is why people were hanged for what might now seem trivial offences. Absolutely nothing to do with pandering to the public. Indeed I suspect that in this particular case the majority of the population will think the 6 months or so jail that Vicky Pryce will undoubtedly receive tomorrow rather harsh.
All governments and their legal systems fear that once you allow respect for the law and ultimately fear of consequences of the law to diminish the whole tottering edifice of the state will start to crumble and order will rapidly descend ino chaos. That is why in any legal system perverting the course of justice is taken so seriously.
Of course this rather silly woman could have made things a lot easier on herself by not pursuing a patently unsupportable not guilty plea and saving the country the cost of two trials. A simple guilty plea and an apology would seem to have been the sensible course to pursue. Daft old bat.
|
>>Hardly. The primary purpose of a sentence is to deter others from committing the same deed
Well its not working very well then is it?
|
>> it never has.
The fact is that no one knows how well it works.
|
>> no, it never has.
>>
Wanna bet?
It's deterred me from a few things.
|
>> It's deterred me from a few things.
Me too, although of course I can't remember what exactly. I'd be willing to bet it's deterred Zero once or twice too...
|
"Well its not working very well then is it?"
Since the people of the UK in the main are law abiding I would say the legal system works as a whole pretty well.
As far as point swapping is concerned I suspect that the publicity engendered by this case will make a lot of people think twice before going down that route so the desired effect will be achieved.
|
"Rape, Murder, Assault, child abuse, theft, arson. They are crimes against a civilised society. Asking you wife to say she was driving the car to pick up an automated fixed price penalty is, not by any stretch of the imagination, a crime against civilisation itself."
It's not just a matter of "asking your wife to pick up an automated fixed price penalty". It's called "perverting the course of justice" and it's a crime against society in the sense that the law and its enforcement are part of the fabric of civilised society. Sometimes the law has to deal in black and white, rather than shades of grey. (I was trying to think of an alternative phrase for that, but failed.)
"People wonder why there is less and less respect for the law, the lawmakers and the law enforcers. Its because cases like this, bring them all into scorn and disrepute."
Maybe - one can argue long and hard about it, but once a law is made it cannot be seen to be flouted. Perhaps it was bad law at the start, or perhaps it's the best that could be achieved, given the complexity of the issues involved. I would argue that these days people are less and less inclined to accept personal responsibility in general for their shortcomings, and that this has little to do with bad laws.
|
>> It's not just a matter of "asking your wife to pick up an automated fixed
>> price penalty". It's called "perverting the course of justice"
you can call it what you like, its still just asking your wife to take an automated fixed penalty. I
>>and it's a crime against society
Oh come on. A crime against society?
>> in the sense that the law and its enforcement are part of the fabric of
>> civilised society. Sometimes the law has to deal in black and white, rather than shades
>> of grey. (I was trying to think of an alternative phrase for that, but failed.)
I'll tell you why this is prosecuted with vigour and will result in jail, its because this particular law and mechanism, is disliked, discredited and widely circumvented. Its bad law, from its detection, enforcement and penalty tariff.
You could not be more fundamentally wrong with your shades of grey analogy, law and punishment is dispensed only on shades of grey not black and white. Its how you end up with people facing jail for a fixed penalty offence, and muggers who rob old ladies not facing jail.
|
I'd be more persuaded by the guardians of right and wrong here if they dobbed themselves in for speeding now and again instead of getting away with it and keeping quiet. Or maybe they never break a speed limit?
This morning I gathered up what looked like the remains of a Chez Ronald takeaway meal and drinks for two, tossed onto the verge outside my house last night. Frankly I'd rather the perpetrators were ducking speeding points than littering the road so I can clean up after them ;-)
|
The law deploys itself in all the colours of the rainbow in its somewhat random fashion. As any fule kno as well as smiting the wicked it quite often lets them off and persecutes the righteous instead. It's always been like that in all civilizations.
If a civilization can't survive a few chancers trying it on and getting away with things it's a pretty feeble civilization. In fact there wouldn't be any civilization were it not for big and wicked chancers having got away with things.
I don't think the Huhnes ought to get porridge, or be made to wear orange jump suits and grovel in the gutter for the cameras. But I won't give much of a damn whatever happens to them. It just isn't a big deal. It's a tasty media story, like the pope-humping teacher but bigger.
|
I guess that all [most] people would agree that for virtually any road/condition combination there should be a maximum speed limit?
If we have a speed limit, then I assume it needs to be enforced?
If it is going to be enforced, then there must be some penalty, and therefore process, if you exceed that limit?
And if you lie to the court to corrupt that process, then I assume that there must be some penalty for that?
What is the alternative? No limits, no enforcement or no penalty?
As far as I can see, the only issue here is that the particular penalty being considered is prison, which seems inappropriate, ineffective, costly and without benefit.
|
>> If it is going to be enforced, then there must be some penalty, and therefore process, if you exceed that limit?
>> And if you lie to the court to corrupt that process,
Oh for heaven's sake.
Yes there is a penalty, and there is a process. But it isn't a court process and the Huhnes just did something a lot of not very bad people do. Not 'lying to the court to corrupt the process' because THERE WASN'T A COURT, just weaselling past an automated pickpocketing, driver-persecuting system. Haven't you got it yet?
All the clamour is a result of Mrs Huhne foolishly admitting what they had done, to a comic instead of the police. That did result in court proceedings, and neither of the main parties lied under oath to 'corrupt' that process.
And what makes you imagine that the country can't afford to jail them, or that jail will be any worse than what they have done to themselves already? It's a sad story, but not because they are being punished too harshly: just because it didn't need to happen at all.
|
God how I hate that 'too late!' pink stripe. I tried to add:
It's their children I can't help worrying about. Hope they've got their heads screwed on.
|
I've only had time to look in here briefly over the last few days but have got more and more frustrated every time I've read this thread.
I felt initially that a prison sentence wasn't called for and community service would have been more appropriate, but as the case has gone on and more of the facts have been revealed I find my opinion changing.
This is not a case of getting a custodial sentence for speeding, it isn't about getting a custodial sentence for perverting the course of justice.
It's about two unsavoury individuals who lied repeatedly and in the course of those lies cost the justice system a lot of money in court cases.
This is about, and could have been avoided by, either of both of them putting their hands up at the start of this and admitting what they had done, expressing their remorse and resigning form the public eye for a while.
Greed, envy and revenge from them both, won the day and now they both have to pay the price (Pryce!) for that.
It's an example which has to be made, and made it should be.
Surely if I can undestand that these two arn't going to prison for the 'piffling' offence of speeding, most others should be able to as well?
Pat
|
|
No-one has said they are going to jail for speeding.
|
If you look back at the thread the comparison is made....more than once.
Pat
|
|
No, the comparison is about bringing conspiracy to pervert because of a speeding offence. The argument is about bolting on such a serious charge, that lets face it, was never intended on its inception to bolster non criminal offences or piddling speeding offences. No-one has suggested the simple act of speeding is resulting in jail.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 11 Mar 13 at 08:26
|
Speeding is not a "non criminal offence". You might not get a criminal record but you are breaking the law - the criminal law.
There was no "inception" for the crime of perverting the course of justice. It is a common law offence and has always been an integral and fundamental part of English law.
|
>> There was no "inception" for the crime of perverting the course of justice. It is
>> a common law offence and has always been an integral and fundamental part of English
>> law.
If it was drafted and subsequently revised, of course it has "inception" It if didn't have it it wouldn't exist in law or be useable.
|
|
The common law offence of perverting the course of justice exists via precedent and case law. It is eminently useable as will be seen today.
|
>> The common law offence of perverting the course of justice exists via precedent and case
>> law. It is eminently useable as will be seen today.
I disagree with you. It should be removed from the statute book and replaced with more suitable specific legislation.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 11 Mar 13 at 09:26
|
"I disagree with you. It should be removed from the statute book and replaced with more suitable specific legislation."
You might disagree but it doesn't make you right. There is no statute giving rise to the offence of "Perverting the Course of Justice". It is a common law offence existing from "time immemorial" The law, as has much of English Law, evolved by way of precedent.
|
>> "I disagree with you. It should be removed from the statute book and replaced with
>> more suitable specific legislation."
>>
>> You might disagree but it doesn't make you right.
Nor, equally you. There is room for us to disagree, which is all I said.
>> There is no statute giving rise
>> to the offence of "Perverting the Course of Justice". It is a common law offence
>> existing from "time immemorial" The law, as has much of English Law, evolved by way
>> of precedent.
Which in no way is a basis for modern suitability. That is in effect saying its there "because". The longer its there "because" the more its suitability should be be challenged and tested.
|
"Nor, equally you. There is room for us to disagree, which is all I said."
Well you can't really disagree with the fact that it is a Common Law Offence and has not arisen by Statute which is all I said.
|
|
Oh whatever, - relegated to "spurious noise" bin.
|
|
Reforming common law offences and codifying them into statute garners no headlines so doesn't happen.
|
>> Reforming common law offences and codifying them into statute garners no headlines so doesn't happen.
They are sometimes got rid of though, and not always for the better.
Champerty and maintenance, based in common law, have not been crimes or torts since 1967.
For that the costly and parasitic claims manufacturing, "accident management" and credit hire industries must give daily thanks.
|
>> No, the comparison is about bringing conspiracy to pervert because of a speeding offence. The
>> argument is about bolting on such a serious charge, that lets face it, was never
>> intended on its inception to bolster non criminal offences or piddling speeding offences. No-one has
>> suggested the simple act of speeding is resulting in jail.
Any form of messing with court process is potentially perverting the course of justice. Mucking around with jurors in a civil case for example.
One speeding charge might be regarded as piddling. Picking up four in a relatively short time suggests somebody with a problem of attitude and/or observation. The law prescribes a penalty of disqualification for such offenders. Some accounts suggest Huhne's risk taking behind the wheel went beyond a disregard for speed limits.
My cycling friends would take it further; bans get dangerous drivers off the road.
It doesn't matter whether the ticket was issued by a man or a machine though the mechanism for camera tickets provides the opportunity for the point swapping caper.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 11 Mar 13 at 09:12
|
Many times in this thread, the arguments of "up holding the entire legal process", " basis of law" "threat to civilisation" have been used to justify bolting on a "conspiracy to pervert the course of justice" charge onto this lie about who was driving. I contend, it in fact does the opposite.
It (lying about who was driving) is a spectacularly easily thing to do, and get away with, being equally spectacularly difficult thing to disprove. All it needs, in effect, is silence after the (lying) event from both parties. It so easy to do, that a significant proportion of people have done it and got away with it. Had Hoone not dumped his missus, no-one would be any the wiser in this particular case.
By bringing this case, the CPS have in effect made future detection of this offence under these circumstances much more difficult to prove, (because people realise how easy it would be to get away with it) with little or no effect upon the quantity of potential offences. In short they have brought the whole original speeding offence, and subsequent legal enforcement process into disrepute. Quite the opposite of the intended effect.
How much simpler would it have been to make the detection process much more watertight, with forward facing infrared images that capture drivers faces, as well as vehicle identity. How much better would it be to use good evidence rather than patch up the back end legal process with unsuitable existing legislation. How much easier and legally watertight would it be to simply say the registered keeper is responsible for any offences. (legal exemption for hire, and fleets of course - who would then be required to provide signed logs of who was driving)
If you logically extend the use of the perverting the course of justice charge, anyone who has an illegal number plate, indeed even one that is dirty, is guilty of that charge, yet it is covered under existing - less serious - legislation. The "perversion" charge has in itself been perverted.
|
|
On the basis of the puritanical approach to lying in court, anybody pleading not guilty and convicted of almost anything would start off with 6 months clink for lying, before sentencing for the underlying offence was even considered. And they could throw half the lawyers in after them.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 11 Mar 13 at 09:24
|
|
And equally, the court (if one is found not guilty) should then try witnesses for the prosecution, even police officers for perjury or perverting the course of justice.
|
>> On the basis of the puritanical approach to lying in court, anybody pleading not guilty
>> and convicted of almost anything would start off with 6 months clink for lying, before
>> sentencing for the underlying offence was even considered. And they could throw half the lawyers
>> in after them.
>>
Indeed.
Is it an offence to plead not guilty in the hope that the prosecution will fail to prove their case?
|
>> Is it an offence to plead not guilty in the hope that the prosecution will
>> fail to prove their case?
>>
No.
Pleading not guilty is effectively saying 'let the evidence be heard', or, 'go on then, prove it'.
|
Prosecution
"Did you xxxxxx"
Defendant - "no"
Lying in court?
|
>>
>> Pleading not guilty is effectively saying 'let the evidence be heard', or, 'go on then,
>> prove it'.
>>
So statements made by the defendant in support of his not guilty plea are also permissible, even if untrue?
I'm not guilty, it wasn't me, I was in a cinema, but I can't remember the film.
I saw a man running out of the building just before I found the body.
|
>> So statements made by the defendant in support of his not guilty plea are also
>> permissible, even if untrue?
>>
>> I'm not guilty, it wasn't me, I was in a cinema, but I can't remember
>> the film.
>>
>> I saw a man running out of the building just before I found the body.
Defendants are given a pretty wide latitude. If their evidence is obviously false the jury will convict. The judge will pick up the point and add it to the aggravating factors when sentencing. No public interest in kicking off additional process in that case.
Perjury is however likely to be invoked in event of a conspiracy with other witnesses.
Lying in a civil trial is also going to get you into trouble as Archer and Aitken found to their cost.
|
www.guardian.co.uk/law/interactive/2013/mar/07/vicky-pryce-trial-prosecution-material
In mortifying fashion, the journalist refers to a driving license (sic). Repeatedly.
|
My dictionary (Collins) contains definitions for both licence and license but marks the US origin of the s version as an alternative to the c.
Both definitions include reference to a token or permit authorising a particular act.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 11 Mar 13 at 13:32
|
Judge has now heard mitigation etc together with submissions on prosecution costs.
He's retired until 16:30 to consider before sentence is pronounced.
|
>> Judge has now heard mitigation etc together with submissions on prosecution costs.
>>
>> He's retired until 16:30 to consider before sentence is pronounced.
>>
No wonder British justice is expensive..
1 day to pass judgement.. should be restricted to 1 hour tops including submissions. And this is an open and shut case..
|
>> No wonder British justice is expensive..
>>
>> 1 day to pass judgement.. should be restricted to 1 hour tops including submissions. And
>> this is an open and shut case..
To be fair they didn't get under way until just after 14:00. Massive media scrum. Given the circs and profile of the defendants I don't think it's that open and shut.
Prosecution to make a statement on appropriate sentence and costs. Both defendants counsel then need to mitigate an introduce character evidence. According to twitter feed Huhne had nerve to ask for discount for guilty pleas - Judge unimpressed.
Both defendants are inteligent and have money for best advice so Judge will want to make sure he's appeal proof.
|
>>
>> To be fair they didn't get under way until just after 14:00
Thanks you for proving my point.
|
|
Is the Judge going to wait to the death to suspend it?
|
>> Is the Judge going to wait to the death to suspend it?
>>
Huhne jailed for 8 months - you will serve at least half he is told
|
>> Is the Judge going to wait to the death to suspend it?
Clearly not.
Wonder what they are having for T. Maybe missed it.
|
>> According to twitter feed Huhne had nerve to ask
>> for discount for guilty pleas - Judge unimpressed.
According to BBC "Huhne received a 10% reduction in his sentence because he pleaded guilty."
|
Just remember this man was only around 500 votes short of being leader of the LibDems.
He could have been Deputy Prime Minister.
Some might say that lying is part of the job description, though!
|
The judge gave Hooner himself a month less sentence for pleading guilty rather at the last minute.
He took against Vicky Pryce for alleging that Hooner had bullied her to have an abortion. I think he didn't believe her and thought the allegation distasteful. I wonder if that was suggested by the poisonous ST hack whose advice she had sought?
|
Zero will no doubt take a different view, but the judge in the case included the following statements in his sentencing remarks:
"Offending of this sort strikes at the heart of the criminal justice system... it must be clearly understood that [the points swapping] amounts to the serious criminal offence of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice... it seems to me a flagrant offence of its type, its effect lasted for many years, and I must give effect to all the purposes of sentence - including deterrence."
(quoted in the Evening Standard)
Let me get the obvious objection in before someone else does - well, he would say that, wouldn't he?
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Mon 11 Mar 13 at 19:21
|
|
Wonder if the Hooninator will get a 6 month driving ban after he is released, and his ex-wife refunded the £60 speeding penalty she was 'forced' to pay.
|
|
Funny how the law doesn't apply to the rogues called bankers,they left a lasting effect for many years.
|
What a waste of two prison places of which, last I heard, there is a shortage.
A quick Google unearths numerous nasty assault convictions that did not result in any prison sentence, let alone 8 months, many of them repeat offences. I know who I want locked up.
Does the judge know who the Rolling Stones are I wonder?
|
>> Does the judge know who the Rolling Stones are I wonder?
>>
"A five piece beat combo, M'Lud".
|
As ever the Judicial Communications Office have been assiduous in getting the judge's sentencing remarks in the public domain:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/pryce-huhne-sentencing-remarks.pdf
|
The boss and I have just seen the Huhne case reporting on the news.
The appearance of some copper on the court steps, prating about it as if civilisation had been threatened, caused me to expostulate "pompous ----".
She swivelled a disapproving eye at me and said it served them right for lying.
So I gave her the full benefit of the views I have been expounding here for the last couple of days.
She hasn't said anything else, so I think I have maritally coerced her into agreeing with me.
|
>>I think I have maritally coerced her into agreeing with me.
Alternatively, you've just managed to sign yourself "off games" for a month...
:-)
|
>> Alternatively, you've just managed to sign yourself "off games" for a month...
>>
>> :-)
Difficult to tell.
She could have been concentrating on the pattern I suppose.
In my nervous eye she somehow reminded me of Madame Defarge knitting by the guillotine.
She did bring me a cup of tea this morning, to be fair.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 12 Mar 13 at 14:30
|
>> Did it taste ok?
No worries on that score, she's not a poisoner. More the shooting type!
|
>> Zero will no doubt take a different view, but the judge in the case included
>> the following statements in his sentencing remarks:
>>
>> "Offending of this sort strikes at the heart of the criminal justice system... it must
>> be clearly understood that [the points swapping] amounts to the serious criminal offence of doing
>> acts tending and intended to pervert the course of justice.
He does, the law is a pompous ass in this respect and the old bufoon in the wig merely confirms it.
>> it seems to me a
>> flagrant offence of its type, its effect lasted for many years, and I must give
>> effect to all the purposes of sentence - including deterrence."
And there is the problem. Its the sheer public flagrant nature of this particular case that makes the law feel they had to pursue it.
|
I haven't followed the case in much detail, just browsed the headlines.
Does anybody know what evidence there was that Huhne was actually driving (beyond Pryce saying that he was).
Presumably, the weight of Pryce's testimony wouldn't, in itself, have been enough for Huhne to fold and plead guilty.
Last edited by: SteelSpark on Tue 12 Mar 13 at 12:11
|
>> I haven't followed the case in much detail, just browsed the headlines.
>>
>> Does anybody know what evidence there was that Huhne was actually driving (beyond Pryce saying
>> that he was).
>>
>> Presumably, the weight of Pryce's testimony wouldn't, in itself, have been enough for Huhne to
>> fold and plead guilty.
I'm not sure there was any real atttempt to explore that. He was reported to display selective amnesia during police interviews. He tried for over a year to get the case struck out on assorted procedural grounds none of which were accepted by the Judge. Once that strategy failed his only options were a guilty plea or perjury.
As to the night in qwuesstion:
It was known to be his normal practice as an MEP to use a particular flight to Stansted, to collect his car, a BMW with a cherished number, from the car park and drive to the marital home in Clapham.
Only he and his wife were insured on the car. Once investigators looked into her possible whereabouts on 12 March 2003 it was clear she'd been at a public function at the London School of Economics. Attendance records and witnesses put that beyond challenge. It would have been wholly or at least practically impossible for her to have got from the LSE in Holborn to Stansted, pick up her husband and get to the point where the car was flashed in the time available after the conclusion of the evening function.
|
Thanks.
I do remember reading somewhere that it was the route from Stansted, so I wondered if they might have retrieved his booking, but it seems that it was a common route for him anyway.
Of course, being able to prove that Pryce couldn't have been the driver (and that he and her were the only ones insured) is pretty good evidence. Bit too late to point the finger at a distant relative from Venezuela.
Thanks again. I thought there must be more to it than "he says, she says".
|
Impossible to feel sorry for either of them, really.
They broke the law, they knew they were breaking the law at the time, they didn't care as the benefit to both of them was considerable, they felt.
She was a vindictive cow who tried to destroy her husband, and in doing so destroyed herself.
He was a previously unheard-of politician. Now he's properly famous so his post-jail earning potential is far greater than it was previously.
That said, I wouldn't wish prison on anybody; but equally that is what the law says is the consequence for perjury, so tough.
|
I hear HMP Holloway womens football team have got a new proven penalty taker...”
Hat tip to @Jane4ukip on Twitter today.
Cruel, but funny!
|
>> I hear HMP Holloway womens football team have got a new proven penalty taker...”
>> Hat tip to @Jane4ukip on Twitter today.
And if thay play Wandsworth Men it'll be a six pointer?
|
You've got to feel sorry for Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce.
One minute, spending a life of lavish luxury, not really wanting for anything, all at the tax payers expense...
...the next minute, they'll be back out of prison.
|
>> that is what the law says is the consequence for perjury, so tough.
Neither of the Huhnes was convicted of perjury or even charged with it.
|
>> Neither of the Huhnes was convicted of perjury or even charged with it.
>>
>>
No, but Perverting The Course is pretty much the same thing and taken just as seriously.
|
>> Perverting The Course is pretty much the same thing
I don't think 'pretty much the same thing' would cut much ice in court RR. It isn't the same thing, and the Huhnes avoided perjury despite ample opportunity.
The judge and the police spokesman of course had to huff and puff and say what a serious attack on justice the Huhnes had made. But it was just for the record, and they did it in a tired sort of way. Privately they would probably agree with some here and the alleged half-million people who have admitted to shifting points that in the moral sense it is very small beer.
|
>> Privately they would
>> probably agree with some here and the alleged half-million people who have admitted to shifting
>> points that in the moral sense it is very small beer.
>>
Half a million may have done it in the past. I wonder how many will in the future?
|
|
Funnily enough, I received a NIP for speeding yesterday. My car. Looked at the date and place, and realised the wife had the car that day. So I've had to dob her in. It doesn't feel in the least bit pleasant, having to fill in your loved one's name and address and send it off to plod. Nasty. One's over-riding instinct is to protect one's family, particularly women and children. But the state forces us to grass them up on this issue. Bitter pill to swallow.
|
|
Get writ of the points system for a start.What is the point of it?If your livelyhood depends on your car people are going to panick.
|
Oh Gawd. I've got another one this morning. Mrs A again. Caught twice in two weeks (consecutive Tuesdays) at the same spot on a motorway. First one at 81mph (I've been assuming she'll get a course and no points for that one), now she's got one for 95mph. Will these be dealt with discretely, or will they lump them together and decide she's beyond being offered a course and give her a hefty fine and points? Maybe the course offer is "in the post", but if they haven't issued that yet, perhaps she'll get clobbered. Either way, there's no temptation to do the Huhne/Pryce manoeuvre at the moment.
Gah.
M40 at Beaconsfield, for anyone using that route.
|
|
M40 at Beaconsfield? Been through there a few times recently... Camera van or gantry mounted? ( gulps and whistles nervously...)
|
Bad luck... I think Mrs A may need to find a new way of enjoying her driving before this risks impacting on the family.
Those bridge camera vans or police with speed guns catch loads near here just before the A1 opens out to the A1(M) 4-lane. They often have a car with hand speed gun looking down from the Norman Cross elevated roundabout to the southbound A1 traffic. Then the chase car sits part way down the slip to join southbound and pull them in the next mile.
I never ever ever drive briskly towards a motorway bridge with a static vehicle or person on it.
|
>> Bad luck... I think Mrs A may need to find a new way of enjoying
>> her driving before this risks impacting on the family.
This is the problem. She hates driving. So she does it as quickly as possible to get where she's going. Just won't listen to pleas to slow down and improve techniques and observation, just doesn't want to hear it. I'm thinking of booking her on an advanced driving course of some kind. In the mean time, I do all the driving when it's a family trip. I sometimes think a ban might do her good, but I'm also aware that she's pretty resistant to authority and will just come back the same as ever before. She's had points and the speed awareness course before (but her licence was clean at the time of the recent splurge).
|
There is a gizmo on my Merc which you can set to limit the top speed. I've not tried it but it's part of the cruise control set up. Probably quite a good idea if one could be bothered to use it. A BMW 5 series I had back around the early 1990s had a simple version in that you could set it to sound a little chime if you went over a given speed. Again not a bad trick I suppose if you are getting near to your upper limit of points. Never got around to using that either mind !
To be truthful, while I freely admit to having been a bit of a presser on in my youth, most of the time now though I can't find the energy to do so and would rarely be going so fast as to attract unwanted legal attention.
My many years of high business mileage combined with self-employment sort of cured me of excess speed for various reasons. Mainly fuel consumption/cost related but also a morbid fear of having a ban and being unable to earn my living. I'd love to say it was instead a form of altruism but realistically it was life's practicalities outweighing and outbidding any desire to drive fast.
We are so thoroughly electronically observed now that it has become almost an inevitability to be caught for anyone who persists in breaking speed limits. Llike it or not it's just the line of least resistance to comply.
I am glad though that I spent my formative driving years under different circumstances. You had to be a complete numpty to be caught speeding on a motorway when the only "opposition" were driving large white cars with fluorescent stripes all over them !
If you were nicked by one of them you probably deserved to be as you really weren't paying attention.
|
>> There is a gizmo on my Merc which you can set to limit the top
>> speed.
There was a speed limiting function on our Smart Roadster. But I'm pretty sure neither our Galaxy nor our Golf has such a function. I'll double check though. Might well get "accidentally" set permanently.
You also mentioned beepings at the speed limit. Well, Mrs A has just graduated to a smartphone with sat nav, and that beeps at the limits. But, true to form, these are seen as the meddlings of authoritarian bureaucracy and are summarily ignored.
Speaking of the sat nav/smartphone stuff, I bought an excellent cradle for the smartphone which is specifically built to order for particular phones and cars. So we have a bespoke VW Golf IV/Nokia 920 solution for her car. The company who make these are called Brodit, Swedish outfit I think. Highly recommended. Anyway, this was purchased with a view to avoiding her getting points and fines for holding the thing, maybe if she'd been doing that on the M40 it would have slowed her down and she wouldn't have got flashed. There's irony, innit?
|
>> Camera van on bridge.
Phew ! I saw that a couple of times. Not that it'd have been an issue you understand...
Those gantry mounted jobs on the M25 and M42 are worthy of particular caution too ( I gather ).
|
Lucky the second one is for 95mph and not 97mph. If it was 2mph higher she'd have to go to the magistrates for them to decide on points and fine.
If your area offers speed awareness courses, the first would probably qualify. I doubt if the second one would. I can't see them treating them together and I'd assume she'll get the points and fine for each.
If she got done for doing 81mph one week. And 95mph the following week... and both offences must have been a few weeks ago now. What did she get done for the third and fourth weeks? She's in danger of losing her licence.
|
|
Last one was for 5th March, the FPN/request for driver details arrived over the weekend (opened this morning) and she hasn't used the route since (I think). Mercifully. The riot act has been read.
|
95? Speedo must have been reading the ton or more. The M40 is a fast route for sure, but she must have been charging up the outside lane and knew it.
If it had been Nicole I would have said "Stupid Tart you deserve all you get" And wouldn't have defended her if anyone said so.
|
>> 95? Speedo must have been reading the ton or more. The M40 is a fast
>> route for sure, but she must have been charging up the outside lane and knew
>> it.
>>
>> If it had been Nicole I would have said "Stupid Tart you deserve all you
>> get" And wouldn't have defended her if anyone said so.
Speedos in both our cars are very accurate, according to the smartphone sat nav. I certainly am not defending my spouse.
|
>>Neither of the Huhnes was convicted of perjury or even charged with it.
It appears that he changed his plea at the last minute to avoid being charged with the far worse perjury charge. I.e prepared to lie to one and all for years but not prepared to lie in the dock.
That at least seemed a good decision.
|
I really don't care what happens to the Huhnes, they certainly deserve anything they get, and both seem to be idiots by any standard.
What I dislike is the fact that we must pay loads for their housing and care for a few weeks (which is a cost), when we could have had them cleaning the streets (which is a benefit).
|
That'll teach me to more than skim the papers. Thanks AC!
When I run the world, those imprisoned will have to pay what it costs to keep them inside.
|
You're on to something there, Mapmaker!
Those with the funds have to pay when they go into a care home. I don't see why those in prison should be treated any better.
|
Just been reminded that I said I'd go to an open talk at the WI tonight on Crime & Punishment (one long party here).
Don't know who the speaker is but they have a 'panel' of certified OK people so it might be interesting. I might try a question on the NoFM2R theory of prisons if I get a bit torpid.
|
>> I might try a question on the NoFM2R theory of prisons if I get a bit torpid.
Please do let me know how *that* goes!
|
|
I'm a bit worried about how to avoid invoking Godwin's Law. Remind me, what was your proposed alternative to prison?
|
How to cause issues at WI; (V2.0 with in-built Godwin avoidance)
Learn the following, repeat loudly, watch results;
Prison has no place in a civilized society, or one that at least aspires to be so.
Prison may be be for one or more of;
1) Removal from society (expensive and merely short term)
2) Deterrent (it isn't one)
3) Rehabilitation (loot at the re-offending rates, it doesn't work)
4) Revenge (pointless and, again, short term, and uncivilized)
Equally it is;
1) expensive
2) corrupting
3) inhumane
Alternative measures could be;
1) Education
2) Community Service
3) Victim services
4) etc.
Could provide;
1) Punishment
2) Rehabilitation
and they are typically;
1) Cheaper
2) More successful
3) Productive
The issue remains what to do with repeat offenders or those refusing to comply.
I would like execution brought back for all suitable offences against the person, but not with any thoughts of deterrence or punishment, simply for permanent removal.
The remaining problem consists of repeated, anti-social crime committed by people with no intention of reforming, but not including crimes against the person.
Then, and ONLY then, would I see prison as a suitable approach, simply because killing them all is ultimately too barbaric. And then the only basis for release would be no longer a risk of re-offence, not for a period served.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 12 Mar 13 at 19:38
|
|
Remember, we British invented the concentration camp.
|
>> Remember, we British invented the concentration camp.
>>
and it worked very well -pity about the inmates.
|
>> Remember, we British invented the concentration camp.
>>
Yep.
Scorched earth policy did end the war quicker than keeping an army of half a million in the field for five years.
It wasn't pretty. But all's fair, etc etc etc
|
>> Deterrent (it isn't one).
Yes it is. It would deter you if only you ever had the impulse to commit crimes. But you're obviously a big goody-goody. We are lucky to have you among us.
>> I would like execution brought back for all suitable offences against the person, but not with any thoughts of deterrence or punishment, simply for permanent removal.
What offences? Murder, violent rape, jihadist plotting, any others? Many would agree, it's tempting, but that way lies fascism.
One would expect a person who lives on coffee, cigarettes and vodka and orange to be quite reasonable. I do, and I am. But I don't eat as much as I did. Perhaps it's all that hogging of major food groups that corrupts you.
|
More Porridge?
Too short a sentence.
Sentencing to be looked at as others who "swapped points" got 12 months and they were not as devious as Chris Who
DTelegraph for more detail
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9927489/Attorney-General-reviews-Huhne-and-Pryce-jail-terms-to-see-if-they-were-unduly-lenient.html
Would you give Pryce & Huhne a longer stay in the jail?
|
>> Would you give Pryce & Huhne a longer stay in the jail?
Referral is playground politics. The AG still has to go through the motions of 'considering'.
(Yesterday's vote in a 'Mansion Tax' forced by LAbour for no better motive than embarrassing Lib Dems was play yard stuff too)
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 13 Mar 13 at 16:02
|
Pryce spent 4 x days in prison.
Now in a cat D prison in Maidenhead, former country manor with rare breed pigs and horses.
Many a pensioner would like 10 weeks free board and lodging, on-site doctor.....will Huhne get a cat D prison with it's own 9 hole golf course?
|
>>Now in a cat D prison in Maidenhead, former country manor with rare breed pigs and horses.
Sounds almost as salubrious as my old Approved Schools:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelstowe_Hall#Essex_County_Council
www.bansteadvillage.com/picture/number162.asp
^_^
|
Vicky Pryce Guilty - Stuu
