After the Chris Hune Speeding episode you would think she would know better.
Fiona Onasanya found guilty, along with her brother, after a retrial.
tinyurl.com/y86atjj6
If sentenced to more than 1 year in prison there will be a by-election. Hune & ex got 8 months.
|
|
In view of the evidence, I can't understand how the first jury didn't reach the same conclusion.
|
>> In view of the evidence, I can't understand how the first jury didn't reach the
>> same conclusion.
>>
I think many thought the same on the Huhne case.
|
It takes a special kind of arrogance to lie like this knowing the untruth is provable and having so much to lose. It can't be a matter of intellectual deficiency, given she is a solicitor.
What I can't understand is how Donald Trump gets away with it.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 19 Dec 18 at 17:38
|
What I can't understand is how Donald Trump gets away with it.
Read my lips
Jeremy Corbyn
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46619689
|
>> What I can't understand is how Donald Trump gets away with it.
>>
>> Read my lips
>> Jeremy Corbyn
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46619689
Let's assume he said it.
Which is wrong, woman or stupid?
|
> Let's assume he said it.
>>
>> Which is wrong, woman or stupid?
>>
I'm led to believe that it's now considered a sexist phrase, a dog whistle phrase if you like.
|
>> Which is wrong, woman or stupid?
Neither. It would have been wrong to say "Stupid Man" though.
Problem is he has no backbone and won't therefore admit to it.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 20 Dec 18 at 02:21
|
>> Which is wrong, woman or stupid?
>>
neither is wrong, she is a stupid woman, incompetent and a dozen other bad things
But he is a liar and a coward
i despair for the state of our political leadership and the quality of our politicians if that is the best they can come up with as leaders
|
|
I happened to be there, at PMQs today - first time visitor!! Didn't see/hear the exchange but the aftershock was amusing. It's all quite a charade really, and very enjoyable with it. Write to your local MP for a ticket...
|
>> I happened to be there, at PMQs today - first time visitor!! Didn't see/hear the
>> exchange but the aftershock was amusing. It's all quite a charade really, and very enjoyable
>> with it. Write to your local MP for a ticket...
Ticket not needed-you can walk in off the street if there is space in the gallery!
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 20 Dec 18 at 10:24
|
True but ticket guarantees entry which is quite important if you're going for a day out from afar to London to see PMQs.
There's also different galleries but I'm not sure what the differences were except I was behind a glass screen and others weren't (and they had mobiles with them but we'd had to give ours up)
|
>> True but ticket guarantees entry which is quite important if you're going for a day
>> out from afar to London to see PMQs.
I think you'd be very lucky to get in for PMQ's if you arrive 'on spec'. it's THE show of the Parliamentary week.
|
|
The ticket gets you into the HoC but it's no guarantee to get into PMQs. It happened to us earlier this year.
|
|
I understood my ticket was a guaranteed entry, and that's what a quick scan around the web confirms. It was a specific one for PMQs, not just a gallery ticket. I'm probably wrong but whatever...
|
Let's say it was 3 points & £100, possibly higher if she already had points.
Now it is possible / probable ??
1) She will do time - at least a few months
2) Reputation gone - guaranteed
3) MP career shot, MP's salary gone
4) Struck off by Law Society?
Speeding Ticket - Now that is a stupid decision by a woman who should know a lot better.
|
It is not her lack of integrity or honesty which bothers me so much, it is her stupidity.
Risk it all for £1m? Maybe. I wouldn't but I can quite see why someone might.
Risk it all for £100? Or for £1,000 for that matter? How stupid can one person be?
|
>> Risk it all for £100? Or for £1,000 for that matter? How stupid can one
>> person be?
Its a certain mind set
A belief that because its an insignificant offence (it is) so can be circumvented with a little white lie, and being an insignificant offence the police wont follow it up. In short its easy to get away with.
And at that point it suddenly becomes a really big offence and the only way out of it seems to be to brazen it out, of course it just gets to be a bigger offence. Its the ultimate digging a hole example.
|
|
The biggest problem for Jeremy Corbyn is not that he said "Stupid woman" but the fact that he lied about it afterwards. Same for the Labour MP who tried to claim she wasn't driving when the speed limit was enforced. Says a great deal about such individuals.
|
I dont believe he did say "stupid woman"
Watching it several times, he does say "stupid" but it appears to me the lip formation is all wrong for a "W" and does look like a "P"
|
>>
>> Watching it several times, he does say "stupid" but it appears to me the lip
>> formation is all wrong for a "W" and does look like a "P"
>>
That may well be true. But muttering "stupid woman" in a moment of exasperation is understandable, human and entirely forgivable, a bit like muttering "stupid little man".
But "stupid person" requires a bit of forethought. It doesn't trip off most people's tongues - it sounds a bit calculated for correctness, a sort of euphemism for stupid woman, so in a way worse.
|
|
The dispute seems to be between 'stupid woman' or 'stupid people'. I don't think 'stupid person' is in the mix
|
I can't see what's wrong with 'stupid woman'; after all, she is very stupid and she is (as I understand) a woman. If I did something stupid, then I would be a 'stupid bloke'.
Another one for the permanently offended.
|
>> I can't see what's wrong with 'stupid woman'
seemed to be the general view around the office this morning
It's JC clearly lying about what he said that is what has kept it live.
A reply of "I was so exasperated, it was a private comment, sorry oif it caused any offence" would have it forgotten in 24 hours.
As it is it may well come back to bite him at some point.
|
"seemed to be the general view around the office this morning"
I wonder if Pike was psychologically harmed after Capn Mainwaring called him a 'stupid boy'.
I suppose, there being a war on at the time, that people had bigger things to be offended about. ;-)
|
Well thats it really isn't it, he should have just faced it out* She is a woman, he thinks she is stupid, there is nothing wrong with the two word construct. Had it been a bloke on the receiving end and he said "you stupid man". nothing would have come of it.
Had he said it, I dont think he did.
Anyway, the wider point is that Corbyn was annoyed at being shown up as a blustering wimp, with less balls than May, saying he was going to call a motion of no confidence, then chickening out.
|
>> As it is it may well come back to bite him at some point.
If it's what he actually said. Report on radio this morning mentioned two 'leading lip readers' almost coming to blows.
|
>> If it's what he actually said. Report on radio this morning mentioned two 'leading lip
>> readers' almost coming to blows.
Well they couldn't really mime insults at one another could they.
|
>> If it's what he actually said.
>>
There are enough videos on news sites etc for people to judge for themselves
I an 100% certain he said Stupid Woman
|
Well our local city MP Fiona Onasanya has got off light with a 3mth jail sentence for lying about who was driving her camera flashed car.
Should have got more as she wasted loads of time pleading not-guilty and showed the highest level of deceit throughout. Her brother who pleaded guilty to aiding her got 10mths back in 2018. She should have had at least the same.
Apparently as part of her defence against a jail term she said it would be harsh for her as an MP and barrister as she would not be able to work in either of her chosen professions.
Tough luck love.
|
As ever the Judge's remarks on sentencing tell us more than press reports:
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/sentencing-remarks-onasanyadocx.pdf
Reading that one can see why first jury might have had sufficient doubters to deny even a majority verdict.
|
Read it all... thanks very interesting.
It seems the Judge... as the initial jury... was somewhat taken in by claims of previous good character and distractions of a busy job. I'd have taken far less account of that. Many folks have busy jobs and pressured lives... no excuse.
Also re good character he has given her the benefit of the doubt that "perverting the course of justice" may not have been with intent for the initial 4mths after the speeding offence... yet for the 14mths after that he concludes it was with intent. I'm guessing it was with intent from the start.
There was plenty of time for a person of *real* good character to straighten things out over that 14mths.
And as of this moment she has refused to resign as an MP so will still be drawing the taxpayer funded salary throughout her prison term... and beyond as she's appealed (given her record in this case no surprise) meaning she can't be deselected until after the appeal is decided.
She's let down a lot of people/bodies that are part of her life. I'd like the sentence to be increased on appeal.
|
>> It seems the Judge... as the initial jury... was somewhat taken in by claims of
>> previous good character and distractions of a busy job. I'd have taken far less account
>> of that. Many folks have busy jobs and pressured lives... no excuse.
I assume you were not in the public gallery for both trials.............
Mr Justice Stuart-Smith sat through her trial and her evidence. He's an experienced High Court Judge and, with no skin in this game, I'd be pretty confident he's not easily 'taken in'.
I don't know what history was with respect to her selection for Peterborough for 2017 GE but it's probable she was selected in a rush after the PM announced 'the snap'. A seat held by the Conservatives since 2015 was not likely to be treated as winnable when Labour was 15%+ behind in the polls. She had the characteristic some of the 1997 intake; an accidental MP. It's thus not surprising that 6 weeks after the election she was in a chaotic situation; read the account of any new MP. More than usual busy job/pressured life scenario.
She'd also had a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis.
When she sent the NIP home her brother appears to have accepted he was the driver. The Judge finds she was not party to a conspiracy until September and it was January 18 before she really dug herself into a hole.
It's a considered and rational sentence. I don't think there's any ground to refer to Attorney General for leniency.
Will be interested to see how an appeal might be pleaded though......
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 29 Jan 19 at 19:21
|
I'm not sure why she's not resigned yet. The labour party have chucked her out as well as supporting a recall as are the con party.
She's going to stand as an independent?
|
Telly news said last night something about 10% of the electorate is needed to vote her out, if she doesn't stand down. I'm not quite sure how that happens though.
Maybe a referendum? That'd sort it out for once and for all, surely? :-)
|
>> www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/184324/Recall-Act-Factsheet.pdf
As that sheet makes clear recall petition cannot be opened until appeals are exhausted or time limit to appeal has expired. She has apparently expressed intention to appeal conviction. Whatever we think of merits of appeal she has that right.
IIRC she needs leave to appeal and that won't happen unless a Judge thinks she has an arguable case.
|
|
Probably trying to delay the inevitable.
|
>>>I assume you were not in the public gallery for both trials.............
Oh come on Bromp... a cheap shot. Of course I wasn't there but I have read carefully and understood the Judge's summary you linked which sets out the basis for his decisions... I'm not working on Daily Mail headlines!
>>> she was in a chaotic situation; read the account of any new MP. More than usual busy job/pressured life scenario... She'd also had a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis...
Even if you accept those circumstances as a reason for making a "mistake" as to who was driving they are absolutely no excuse to attempt to pervert the course of justice once you know a "mistake" has been made. It is very likely she has been aware of that "mistake" for 18mths now, and the court is convinced she has be totally aware for the past 16mths. Plenty of time for a good christian MP with a solicitors background to set things straight.
>>>When she sent the NIP home her brother appears to have accepted he was the driver. The Judge finds she was not party to a conspiracy until September 2017...
Well actually the brother didn't put himself down as the driver... he filled it in as if a Russian lodger they'd had in their shared house was the driver... a guy who was in Russia at the time.
Yes whilst it couldn't be proved she was party to the incorrect completion of the NIP upon receipt it was established by 20th Sept 2017 she knew this was being taken further and the driver information was in doubt. It was established that by 2nd Nov she knew absolutely the provided driver information was false and as you say by 2nd Jan 2018 it was established she and her brother were colluding to cover up the offence.
Some of her defence claims are beyond belief...
Such that when she received the NIP showing the offence to be in Thorney late one evening (a small village north of Peterborough) she said she knew it wasn't her driving at that time so passed the NIP to her mother's house for "the driver" to fill in. Yet she recived that NIP just 9 days after having a meeting late that evening with her Campaign and Comms manager... who lived in Thorney about a mile from the camera.
Cell tower data showed the two phones associated with her confirmed their presence around the time and location of the offence.... yet when questioned she claimed she no longer had those phones due to receiving racist calls on them... well how convenient.
Truth is she probably knew she was the driver when she received the NIP and her defence since then has just been constant lies and attempts at confusion to escape the consequences.
Re getting her out of her MPs job... yep indeed as Bromp says the whole appeal process has to be gone through before the Recall of MPs process can be started. Obvious why she'd appeal as it keeps the salary flowing for a good while longer. Particularly as the process to remove her relies on 10% of the Peterborough electorate to bother to sign the petition. Folks are quite happy to grumble about her in the street... but actually signing might be a different matter and she could survive due to apathy.
|
|
The fact she hasn't done the honourable thing and resigned as an MP, tells you all you need to know about her general attitude.
|
Quite.
She is an odd one. After her conviction late last year she issued a message to fellow Labour MPs which included the words...
I am in good biblical company along with Joseph, Moses, Daniel and his three Hebrew friends who were each found guilty by the courts of their day. “While God did not save them from a guilty verdict he did save them in it and ensured that their greatest days of impact were on the other side of a guilty verdict. Of course this is equally true of Christ who was accused and convicted by the courts of his day and yet this was not his end but rather the beginning of the next chapter in his story.”
Hmm she really is elevating herself as untouchable... in her own mind.
|
>> The fact she hasn't done the honourable thing and resigned as an MP, tells you
>> all you need to know about her general attitude.
>>
Remembering the expenses scandal, amongst others...
She must have completed the "I'm an MP now, what can I get away with" course.
|
>> The fact she hasn't done the honourable thing and resigned as an MP, tells you
>> all you need to know about her general attitude.
>>
It's all about the money.
|
>> The fact she hasn't done the honourable thing and resigned as an MP, tells you
>> all you need to know about her general attitude.
If she's pursuing an appeal then she's entitled to hang on until it's resolved. She cannot resign as Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds and re-take her seat if her appeal, however far fetched it looks now, were to succeed.
Mind you I think my employers, current and previous, would probably take a dim view of the actions involved and I'd be at least suspended.
And even though they've expelled her I don't think Labour really want to fight a by-election right now in a leave voting marginal.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 30 Jan 19 at 21:52
|
>>If she's pursuing an appeal then she's entitled to hang on until it's resolved
Presumably because she doesn't know whether or not she lied, whether or not she intended to corrupt the system and whether or not she is guilty?
Presumably in her world it is whether or not they can prove you did wrong, not whether or not you actually did wrong?
It would be very interesting to se a by election. Especially if, as is likely, Brexit became the issue in that election.
|
>> Presumably in her world it is whether or not they can prove you did wrong,
>> not whether or not you actually did wrong?
I think that's a reasonable summation of how English criminal cases work.
It will be very interesting to see how an appeal is pleaded; abstruse point of law? misdirection of jury by judge? Difficult to see how it could get past first base of permission but I guess us law watchers will need to stock up on popcorn.
>> It would be very interesting to se a by election. Especially if, as is likely,
>> Brexit became the issue in that election.
Absolutely. Come to think of it the Tories probably want her to hang on too :-)
|
>
>> And even though they've expelled her I don't think Labour really want to fight a
>> by-election right now in a leave voting marginal.
>>
>>
If so they're doing a good job hiding it.
|
Seems her refusal to accept the court's verdict, resign as an MP and keep her head down may have backfired. From The Telegraph...
Jailed MP Fiona Onasanya could have her “unduly lenient” sentence increased after Government officials indicated the Attorney General would intervene.
Amid a public outcry over the former Labour whip’s refusal to resign, The Telegraph has been told it is “almost inevitable” her sentence will be challenged due to the high-profile nature of the case.
A senior Whitehall source added they expected a formal request for review to be submitted to Geoffrey Cox QC, the Government’s chief legal adviser,
|
>> Amid a public outcry over the former Labour whip’s refusal to resign, The Telegraph has
>> been told it is “almost inevitable” her sentence will be challenged due to the high-profile
>> nature of the case.
Her refusal to resign is neither here nor there in this context
There are quite a few if and perhaps bits in there. I'm sure somebody will be willing to refer it to the Attorney General. IF he is satisfied the sentence is unduly lenient, not just lenient, then he should refer to the Court of Appeal. A sentence is unduly lenient where:
it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. In that connection, regard must of course be had to reported cases and in particular to the guidance given by this Court from time to time in the so-called guideline cases'.
(Attorney General's Reference No 4 of 1989 11 Cr. App. R. (S) 517 - Lord Lane CJ).
The judges sentencing remarks show a clear and logical rationale for his sentence including mitigation/character pre-sentence report and his own observations at trial. The case of McGann, to which he refers suggests, must have been persuasive.
Although the Attorney General is an MP and political appointee he is, in dealing with this he acts in a quasi judicial capacity. He cannot refer it as a political stunt; the Lords Justices would bawl him out if he did.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 31 Jan 19 at 10:40
|
And no doubt you would still see it as sensible and unremarkable if it was a Conservative politician.
She should go asap.
|
>> And no doubt you would still see it as sensible and unremarkable if it was
>> a Conservative politician.
Three issues here for me (a) should she resign before exhausting appeal process (b) how an appeal could be pleaded and (c) Attorney General's reference regarding lenient sentence.
While (a) might be coloured by politics (b) and (c) are of interest to me as observer of legal scene.
|
I appreciate the honesty, but a politician, especially this one, sets themselves up as being a leader of the rest of us and should therefore be accountable for their actions within the context of their job and the role they play, not simply the letter of the law.
As in "By all means appeal your heart out, but you are still a liar and you still tried to pervert the course, you should still get your butt out of Westminster".
|
Similar but appears more malicious than the Huhne/Price debacle.
9-12 months.
Next case please.
|
>> Similar but appears more malicious than the Huhne/Price debacle.
Interestingly the Judge contrasted this case with Huhne. Similar facts, defendants
were persons in positions of privilege and responsibility (him a minister, her a government economist). Judge regarded Huhne/Price as more serious because it allowed Huhne to evade points, furthermore it was a conspiracy from word go and lasted for years before Price detonated a hand grenade by maliciously mentioning the act to a news reporter.
|
|
All true NoFM2R, but you know more than most how being procedurally inept can end up being a big £££ win for the sacked.
|
>>….you know more than most how being procedurally inept...….
Now there's a backhander if ever there was one.
|
>>Now there's a backhander if ever there was one.
Ha ha! Totally unintentional but makes me chuckle re-reading it!
|
I see the sentence is being reviewed for being too lenient.
Apparently only takes one "complaint". So maybe a disgruntled voter or MP. Or almost anyone off Twitter :-)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47071120
|
>> I see the sentence is being reviewed for being too lenient.
For reasons I set out above I don't think this will go anywhere. The sentence may be lenient but not unduly so. The Judge's sentencing remarks page 4 quote authority from a Court of Appeal case called McGann:
Court of Appeal upheld the Judge’s approach and sentence, which was to pass an immediate custodial sentence but to make it as short as possible. The Court of Appeal did so having highlighted the Appellant’s persistence but giving full weight to the disastrous effects of the conviction upon the him.
McGann was a serviceman who committed identical offence, previous good character and suffered similar 'fall from grace' and loss of career.
I'm not clear the AG will refer it at all in face of that authority, still less that if he does the CoA will overturn McGann.
I may of course be proven wrong.
|
Ahh.. the good old "He/She's one of us" mentality for sentence mitigation.
Try wearing a hoodie and see what happens to the mitigation.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuRTPbI0ciY
Guy sounds a bit of a -path but has done a fun series of videos about his own journey to/through court.
|
>>>Her refusal to resign is neither here nor there in this context
I agree it wouldn't change the legal outcome of the "too lenient" process. However her aloof attitude and refusal to resign is probably what triggered someone to request the leniency process be started. So if... and I agree it is a big if... her sentence were increased the root cause could be considered to be her attitude. Big own goal if so.
Re getting shot of her and a possible local election...
An official Labour spokesperson has said... "If Fiona does not resign, Labour will support local residents in their efforts to trigger a by-election through a recall petition"
So Labour are OK with going into the fray again... local Conservatives are already making plans and other potential candidates also welcome the challenge. As I think someone said above if it comes to a local election soon this could be one time when the public's views on national events may actually reflect in local elections.
|
Re your final comment, I always think it dangerous to read too much into how the public vote, though the pundits inevitably will.
How people vote (if they bother) may be affected by a wide range of things, including, say, their view of Govt handling of BREXIT, of TM and/or JC, of stuff unrelated to BREXIT (e.g. NHS, homelessness, anti-Semetism, global warming, Diane Abbott/JacobRM/Boris or Universal Benefits), of the events giving rise to the by-election, or any number of things.
Especially in a by election, where the usual turnout looks to me to average 40% or less.
www.ukpolitical.info/by-election-turnout.htm
The results could usually be interpreted differently to suit most agendas. And of course people will also be able to read things into a high or low turnout too!!
|
|
I broadly agree and that is usually the case... but I was just wondering if the current national turmoil may concentrate folks minds more in this case.
|
I know several people in that, and neighbouring ward. They are all threatening to vote green*, just to protest about those currently in the commons (both sides of the house).
*and none of them because of the greens manifesto, just because they are seen as the most likely to get somewhere protest vote.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 1 Feb 19 at 12:18
|
Prodding about on other forums where they discuss such things, large number of people seem to say variants of "I won't ever vote" some party "because my mum and dad didn't and our family doesn't, don't care what the issues are".
|
>> Prodding about on other forums where they discuss such things, large number of people seem
>> to say variants of "I won't ever vote" some party "because my mum and dad
>> didn't and our family doesn't, don't care what the issues are".
>>
Stands to reason, learned behaviour from your family comes in many flavours. If you come from a family home with little or no interest in politics then you probably won't.
|
|
Yes, except many seem to be virulently anti-whichever rather than apathetic.
|
Anti or apathetic it does seem to be low historically, although it's on the way up.
www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
|
|
Thanks for the update. Oh well it's down to the appeal court now.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47360323
Looks like that's all she'll get. Not referred to the appeal court, not considered to be unduly lenient.
|
>> Looks like that's all she'll get. Not referred to the appeal court, not considered to
>> be unduly lenient.
There was an item in Hansard a week or so ago confirming that the time limit for referral of an unduly lenient sentence had passed without such a referral being made. Today's announcement from the Law Officers confirms that although they received a complaint the threshold for referral was not crossed.
General comment in legal circles seemed to suggest judge had 'belt and braced' the point in his sentencing remarks.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 25 Feb 19 at 16:13
|
|
I can't remember the rules, but if enough voters call for a by election you can have one?
|
>> I can't remember the rules, but if enough voters call for a by election you
>> can have one?
Voters cannot trigger a by-election at will. If however an MP is suspended for breach of standards, jailed for a period insufficient to automatically disqualify them or convicted od expenses fraud then constituents can petition for their recall.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_of_MPs_Act_2015
Ian Paisley junior, MP for North Antrim, came within a hairsbreadth of recall last year.
|
>>
>> Ian Paisley junior, MP for North Antrim, came within a hairsbreadth of recall last year.
>>
Is he still called junior?
|
Dang, that was a quick 3 months.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47369669
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 26 Feb 19 at 09:46
|
>> Dang, that was a quick 3 months.
A perfect illustration of why short sentences are pretty useless, though this one may be an example of their effect as short, sharp shock for the middle classes.
|
"though this one may be an example of their effect as short, sharp shock for the middle classes."
I thought it shocking that she should get off so lightly.
|
Peterborough faces the prospect of being represented in the house by an MP wearing an electronic tag and under curfew... so far she's demonstrated the brass neck to suggest she may indeed return to the house under those circumstances.
Like many I watch with interest.
|
>> Peterborough faces the prospect of being represented in the house by an MP wearing an
>> electronic tag and under curfew... so far she's demonstrated the brass neck to suggest she
>> may indeed return to the house under those circumstances.
Not one of her natural supporters are you :-P
|
>>Not one of her natural supporters are you
She's a proven lying POS.
Ideal MP?
|
>> She's a proven lying POS.
>>
>> Ideal MP?
Her conviction is under appeal. While it's difficult to work out what grounds she might have fact that first jury failed to convict suggests there may be some reason to doubt if case against her is as solid as it seems.
Her appeal is next Tuesday. Not been able to find whether that is just for permission or for substantive hearing. If she loses there then, IMO, it's game over and she should resign or face a recall petition.
While she's still MP she should be attending the House and serving her constituents. If she's tagged and curfew applies then it should be flexible enough to allow her to do her job.
|
>>Her conviction is under appeal. While it's difficult to work out what grounds she might have fact that first jury failed to convict suggests there may be some reason to doubt if case against her is as solid as it seems.
A genuine question, though just out of interest;
Whenever you are writing of such things you consistently leave out the word "the". Why is that? You don't do it on more 'normal' topics.
|
>> Whenever you are writing of such things you consistently leave out the word "the". Why
>> is that? You don't do it on more 'normal' topics.
As in 'case against her' rather than 'the case against her' and that this is something I do when writing of court/legal matters but not other topics?
Not deliberate and not something I remember being mentioned before but I but now it's come up I see what you mean.
Speculating, but perhaps I subconsciously drop into some 'house style', a learned behaviour if you like, when writing around an area I was tied to professionally for donkeys years.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 26 Feb 19 at 16:10
|
into some 'house style',
what's house style?
|
|
He said - " 'house style', a learned behaviour if you like, when writing around an area I was tied to professionally for donkeys years"
|
>> He said - " 'house style', a learned behaviour if you like, when writing around
>> an area I was tied to professionally for donkeys years"
>>
Yes I know , I read it. I'm asking what those two words mean.
|
>>> " 'house style'... I'm asking what those two words mean.
To me this... www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJk0Tq3JDU
Just wait for the drop...
|
>> He said - " 'house style', a learned behaviour if you like, when writing around
>> an area I was tied to professionally for donkeys years"
House style and learned behaviour might be different things.
In The Quango there was document which set out how we write stuff - a 'house style'. It spelled out the fonts we used eg Arial for letters and papers, something proprietary with a name I've forgotten for publications. There were specific ways to set out meeting Agendas, papers for the monthly meeting, minutes and submissions to the Chairman.
When I mentioned 'learned behaviour' I was thinking more of knowledge picked up from colleagues. Pre Quango I worked with people under jurisdiction of the Court of Protection. Lots of us had informal folders of 'here's one I made earlier' examples for how to write (say) a letter to a Doctor asking for an opinion on whether a person with a brain injury had capacity to make a will, known in those days as testamentary capacity. My mentor when I joined had been in the organisation for 25+ years. She loaned me loads of sample letters.
In my current work at CA notes of advice given start with FAMED:
Family
Accommodation
Money
Employment
Discrimination.
|
>>In The Quango there was document which set out how we write stuff - a 'house style'.
In my early days we had exactly the same in the MOD. Even to the extent of definitions as to the defined usage of should, would, could, might, may, must etc. etc. Pretty similar in Underwriting.
To this day I am a supporter of consistent documentation standards, but in my experience it always went too far.
I find your habit of not using 'the' very distracting and sometimes a little confusing. Not that I am putting that forward as any reason for you to change, I was just curious.
|
>> I find your habit of not using 'the' very distracting and sometimes a little confusing.
Interesting how we read stuff differently, not meanings just the practicalities of lifting the words off the page. Never thought too hard about it but I think my mind would just insert the missing 'the' if its presence helped.
I'm useless at proof reading because I see word/spelling that should be there not what's actually on the page.
My Mother was a Primary School Teacher with a particular interest in teaching reading to the educationally disadvantaged. She would found the sort of difference between reading techniques of two professional blokes in their fifties we're discussing here fascinating.
|
I think, for me, it alters the appearance, or context in a sentence and so it interrupts my 'speedy' reading.
I sometimes have to read huge documents, or huge amounts of documentation, and then grammatical errors often trip me up, and cause me to pause and re-read to get the sense of what I just read.
To read a large badly written document, for example one that has been clumsily translated, is a slow process for me.
I think this does the same.
Why, I don't really know. I guess you just get used to seeing some things appear in a certain way.
|
>> Not one of her natural supporters are you :-P
To be fair, with her attitude I doubt she has many anywhere.
|
>>Not one of her natural supporters are you
I was indifferent until the details of the case and her attitude came to light. She's not my MP but the MP of many I know. Her campaign and subsequent service to the community as an MP has been based on her stated high ideals and adherence to the word of and trust in God. She has taken a stance that she's an MP local folks with issues and the disadvantaged can trust to advance their causes... against typical Tory types, values, their behaviours and decisions.
Yet she has proved herself worthy of the very distrust and excess she has "soapboxed" against to gain her MP's position and salary.
|
Appeal failed:
tinyurl.com/yy2a7txw (London Evening Standard)
Represented herself according to Twitter.
No further sympathy, she should resign now.
|
|
I see how she thinks she'll stay on. Not sure if they'll be the number of votes in the petition but I would think so. Her old party want her gone, she thinks she win as an independent?
|
About time... the somewhat sluggish wheels are in motion...
This afternoon Mr Bercow said: “I have received a letter this afternoon form the registrar of criminal appeals informing me that Fiona Onasanya’s application for leave to appeal against her conviction has been refused. This notification triggers the Recall of MPs act 2015 and I will accordingly be writing to the relevant petition officer to inform that person that Fiona Onasanya is therefore subject to a recall petition process. It will be for that officer to make the arrangements for that petition.”
|
41mph in a 30 limit - the driver has a clean licence but decides to try and avoid the £60 + 3 points. She sets off on a course that will cost her
1) Any reputation that she may have had
2) Struck off as a solicitor
3) Likely to lose MP seat & £79K per year + expenses
4) 1 month in the pokey
Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.
That said, she could stand again as an Independent but the chances are she would stand little chance against Party machines & her conduct whilst a sitting MP.
|
>> but decides to try and avoid the £60 + 3 points.
Minimum speeding fine was raised to £100 back in April 2017.
But for more serious offences, it could be up to 175% of your weekly income.
www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/speeding-fines-rise-175pc-weekly-wages-monday/
www.confused.com/on-the-road/driving-law/speeding-fine-calculator#
|
|
I think the point was, its a piddling nothing offence worthy only of a mild expletive and a shrug, and it was escalated to career and life destroying heights. Why? what on earth make politicians act this way, the offence minor and of no public interest, ballooned into front page bad news.
|
>> Why? what on earth make politicians act this way
Her actions show an unshakeable and unjustifiable level of self-belief - her appeal performance was laughable and an embarrassment.
Ideal politician material unfortunately.
|
|
Seems she was also a solicitor.
|
>>Minimum speeding fine was raised to £100 back in April 2017.
Sorry for the error but I am not up-to-date with the fines, points etc.
I have only been driving for 55+ years & never been fined/points for any traffic offence - I have made insurance claims but the 3rd party insurer always paid in full.
I have had a parking ticket - it was for £6.00 for overstaying a parking meter around 1984 in the centre of Edinburgh.
My point was that 41 mph in a 30 limit is an offence of modest proportions that became a monster for the MP concerned because of her own stupidity and / or arrogance.
|
>> 41mph in a 30 limit - the driver has a clean licence but decides to
>> try and avoid the £60 + 3 points.
It was actually her brother who nominated the driver. It's possible her later actions were to protect him rather than to avoid the fine but she continued to plough on even when the nature of offence was clear to her - hence the conspiracy.
Her performance before the Appeal Court seems to have been toe curlingly embarrassing. Given the first jury contained at least 3 and possibly as many as 9 doubters there might just have been some grounds. Turning up in person, unprepared and arguing the facts rather than law or mis-direction by trial judge has me worried for her mental state. Lord Leveson's comments, although temperately phrased, were a pretty stinging rebuke.
|
|
It seems to me that a great deal of time and money was wasted by this woman; has anyone read of the likely cost of it all and, who would have paid?
|
>> It seems to me that a great deal of time and money was wasted by
>> this woman; has anyone read of the likely cost of it all and, who would
>> have paid?
Mr Wain, it will be the same people that always pay!
Thee and me.
|
>>
>> Mr Wain, it will be the same people that always pay!
>>
>> Thee and me.
>>
...that's very kind of the two of you.....
|
Well a wonderful combination of brass neck and slippery politician, have a look at the video...
twitter.com/FionaOnasanyaMP
Says she's telling her side of the story at last but sidesteps the facts and just chucks in three sentences in the middle saying she's innocent.
And what's with the grand newsnight style backdrop?
|
|
Is she subject to a recall petition?
|
Not court this time but an Employment Tribunal
A disabled female employee was told to use the Gents
Looks like she needs to get a lawyer!
tinyurl.com/y5c7vusw
|
Hmm, will be interesting to see the result.
Ms Goodenough's evidence:
She said Ms Onasanya mispronounced the word "eligible" while on the phone to a constituent, and so she tried to correct her saying "illegible".
She told the hearing: "She said it about seven times while on the phone and in front of a constituent. I had a notepad next to me and wrote 'eligible not illegible' and underlined it."
Any employee who tactlessly corrects their employers english in front of a third party, particularly something that may be down to accent, is looking for trouble
|
|
I so look forward to seeing what sort of cack Onasanya comes out with this time in her defence.
|
|
I think she went to the McAlpine Law School. Carries a shovel in her brief bag.
|
The Daily Mail's take goes into more detail than the Telegraph and appears somewhat more sympathetic to Ms Onasanya who might well have felt undermined if ticked off over her English.
tinyurl.com/y39du2rt
The loo issue seems to result from the MP's office being in an old building with limited facilities and carp lifts. Bit similar here. Staff loos are all on half landings. Only one with level access is in the clients' waiting area. All are Unisex but no urinals and only a single pan on each floor.
Our lift is too small some types of wheelchair. We use an office in the town hall for clients who cannot get up to first floor.
|
Further comment:
Tribunal found failure of lift was issue for landlord and outside control of Ms Onasanya as the employer.
In circs where disabled or gender appropriate loo was difficult of access 'use the gents' was a pragmatic approach. Claimant has IBS so presumably when she's got to go it's pretty urgent.
Ms Goodenough was representing herself as she is now on Universal Credit and cannot afford legal representation. The employer was legally represented so judge potentially has to deal with 'inequality of arms'. While there's not normally legal aid for Employment Tribunals it is still available for discrimination cases and (presumably) Ms Goodeneough claimed discrimination for disability. As an employee of less than two years standing she'd need to show dismissal was for reason that's automatically unfair, probably not relevant here, or discrimination in order to gain right to go to tribunal.
Maybe she failed the 'merit' test for legal aid......
I assume the judgement will appear on the public register in due course but it's not there yet.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 6 Apr 19 at 16:36
|
|
So the other day she used her DECISION MAKING L again to Vote in an election , that her side won by 1 Vote , hers , despite her still being in licence and shou,d have been at home under quarantine , and is being recalled or at least interviewed onnwhy she broke themLaw again
|
>> So the other day she used her DECISION MAKING L again to Vote in an
>> election , that her side won by 1 Vote , hers , despite her still
>> being in licence and shou,d have been at home under quarantine , and is being
>> recalled or at least interviewed onnwhy she broke themLaw again
Like it or not she remains an MP until she resigns, the recall petition succeeds or May calls an election.
Is there a credible report about her being interviewed for breach of licence?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 7 Apr 19 at 18:33
|
Now being charged by Solicitors Regulation Office with various professional offences.
Doesn't look good for her.
|
|
27% of the electorate signed the petition. By election in 6-8 weeks.
|
But shes innocent!!!! She said so herself.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKW5jOCGtfw
|
"f one does take place, then Nigel Farage’s Brexit party is expected to stand its first parliamentary candidate, but a spokesman said no decision had yet been made on whether Farage might stand himself."
Oh please, make him stand.
|
|
Be careful what you wish for!
|
|
We might as well find out.
|
Ahh at last a real judgement on her fitness for public office... a peoples vote ha ha.
Word on the street locally was that her smug sense of belief in God and her own self plus her anticipated belief that 7000+ folks would never turn out to vote for recall would keep her in a job.
Nice that in the end almost three times the amount needed did bother to vote her out.
Just need the solicitors regulatory body to bar her then we have the triple whammy.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Thu 2 May 19 at 12:12
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-49251372
A lesson to everyone on what many might consider a relatively minor dishonest act can have a disastrous effect on your life and livelihood.
|
Our own scumbag got 18 months.
Breaches of trust don't come much lower than stealing donations.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48543313
|
>> Our own scumbag got 18 months.
>>
>> Breaches of trust don't come much lower than stealing donations.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48543313
McGarry wept in the dock as the court was told that she had suffered a miscarriage earlier this week, while she was six weeks pregnant.
Mr Macleod said: "She describes her life as almost intolerable. Two weeks ago she considered that life could not get any worse, and then it did.
Not intolerable enough for a spot unprotect nookie tho, or was that therapy?
"She was pregnant and miscarried, that happened on Sunday and that is something that for her has been absolutely devastating.
Or maybe, a couple of months before sentencing, an attempt to avoid jail due to pregnancy?
|
Come on Z cut her some slack!
My thoughts entirely :))
|
|
That was the first thing that entered my head. What a bunch of sinix we are
|
>>My thoughts entirely :))
Mine too.
Reminded me of a fairly local story from a few years ago - couple fighting extradition for drug-making chemical charges (and the guy was also wanted back in the US for historic noncery charges as well) managed to get knocked up 3 times I think while awaiting extradition outcome.
www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/crystal-meth-pair-brian-kerry-3861204
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-48665324
I wonder if there's something in this? A few other forums and other social media there's a lot of comments about it. Some of it is perhaps the result not going the way the wanted, but then again it could be the start of a scandal?
|
Locally on the day there was much chat that certain family types in certain city areas... shall we say where there may be a strong male head of household... were arriving en-masse at the voting stations with the families attempting to all crowd the same booth.
Similarly there were said to be concerns at a fairly high postal vote where those voting could have been directed in their vote similar to above.
|
|
Yes they were some concerning incidents if true especially in such a tight result. A couple of the councillors have raised concerns and I'd read a voter democracy group had seen people been taking photos on their cameras to prove who they'd voted for.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-49251372
... has been struck off as a solicitor.
"As a solicitor there are professional consequences that follow from a proven act of dishonesty that has been found by a jury after trial."
She was ordered to pay £6,562 costs to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
|
>> She was ordered to pay £6,562 costs to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
A figure the tribunal ordered which was only about a quarter of what the SRA claimed.
www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/onasanya-struck-off-as-solicitor-after-disastrous-driving-conviction/5071254.article
She's still maintaining her innocence and trying to get the Criminal Cases Review Commission involved and tried to get the Solicitors Discipline Case adjourned pending that. I think her chances are vanishingly slim and assume the tribunal applied the same reasoning.
The full decision will be on the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal's website in due course.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 6 Aug 19 at 14:44
|
Lost her "MP job" paying £75K + generous expenses + gold plated pension
Struck off as solicitor
A few weeks porridge for perjury
Any reputation she may have had lost
£7K costs
all for the sake of
£60 or £100 fine and 3 points on what was a clean licence.
No doubt a harsh outcome BUT she has nobody else to blame apart from herself.
Last edited by: Falkirk Bairn on Tue 6 Aug 19 at 15:14
|
>> £60 or £100 fine and 3 points on what was a clean licence.
It was a bit more involved than that. The person who first spun the line about a Russian driving was her brother. She then tried to cover for him. If she'd come clean she might have got fine/points or even an Awareness Course but that would have left him face the music. And for him it was not just this offence he'd done same thing before.
Agree though that she's nobody to blame but herself.
|
MP Guilty of Perverting the Course of Justice - bathtub tom
