Chris Huhne... going soon?
Discussion
Lost_BMW said:
I love how your posts are so in keeping with your user name!
Mind you, seeing Huhne hanging from one of the wind turbines he helped foist on us would cheer my Christmas I have to admit.
Ha ha, cheers my man. I'll be the first to admit that it may ever so slightly be a misnomer.Mind you, seeing Huhne hanging from one of the wind turbines he helped foist on us would cheer my Christmas I have to admit.
With regards to the wind turbines, I think you've cracked it. With could add the snivelling Pryce and leave the whole sorry trinity for the crows to feed upon.
Ho ho ho.
Jovial Joe said:
Lost_BMW said:
I love how your posts are so in keeping with your user name!
Mind you, seeing Huhne hanging from one of the wind turbines he helped foist on us would cheer my Christmas I have to admit.
Ha ha, cheers my man. I'll be the first to admit that it may ever so slightly be a misnomer.Mind you, seeing Huhne hanging from one of the wind turbines he helped foist on us would cheer my Christmas I have to admit.
With regards to the wind turbines, I think you've cracked it. With could add the snivelling Pryce and leave the whole sorry trinity for the crows to feed upon.
Ho ho ho.
I had money on Huhne getting off on a technicality in court. This included the technicality of his missus withdrawing any statement against him if they were tried separately. If he doesn't get to court then I lose £20 unless his missus lost her memory.
Only slightly connected, this morning I went into WH Smiths as we have two extra guests arriving for Boxing Day and we needed two extra scratch cards that my missus thought might be nice to give to all guests, including me. As luck would have it I had got the wrong ones(!). So whilst in Costas being patronised by my wife, I said as we'd got two 'spare' ones we might as well play them. These were £2 ones (the others were £1) each with 8 (I think) chances of winning. My wife got £5 and I got £20. When I went to cash them, the woman behind the counter was quite helpful (despite the queue behind me) and explained that I hadn't scratched something off, pointing out that I should remember it for 'next time'. I said that this was the first time I'd bought the cards so would quit while I was ahead.
She seemed to be upset about this and said that as I'd 'won £25' I should give it a go. I pointed out, in a friendly manner I thought, that I had actually only won £21 as the tickets cost money. I got a very concerned stare.
I thought then that if I did indeed lost the £20 on the bet on Huhne then I could comfort myself that I had come out £1 ahead.
I reckon that his brief has been in a long and meaningful argument with the CPS, pointing out that it is not the the public's interest to prosecute.
So on that downbeat thought, can I say Happy Christmas to everyone.
Only slightly connected, this morning I went into WH Smiths as we have two extra guests arriving for Boxing Day and we needed two extra scratch cards that my missus thought might be nice to give to all guests, including me. As luck would have it I had got the wrong ones(!). So whilst in Costas being patronised by my wife, I said as we'd got two 'spare' ones we might as well play them. These were £2 ones (the others were £1) each with 8 (I think) chances of winning. My wife got £5 and I got £20. When I went to cash them, the woman behind the counter was quite helpful (despite the queue behind me) and explained that I hadn't scratched something off, pointing out that I should remember it for 'next time'. I said that this was the first time I'd bought the cards so would quit while I was ahead.
She seemed to be upset about this and said that as I'd 'won £25' I should give it a go. I pointed out, in a friendly manner I thought, that I had actually only won £21 as the tickets cost money. I got a very concerned stare.
I thought then that if I did indeed lost the £20 on the bet on Huhne then I could comfort myself that I had come out £1 ahead.
I reckon that his brief has been in a long and meaningful argument with the CPS, pointing out that it is not the the public's interest to prosecute.
So on that downbeat thought, can I say Happy Christmas to everyone.
Derek Smith said:
I had money on Huhne getting off on a technicality in court. This included the technicality of his missus withdrawing any statement against him if they were tried separately. If he doesn't get to court then I lose £20 unless his missus lost her memory.
Only slightly connected, this morning I went into WH Smiths as we have two extra guests arriving for Boxing Day and we needed two extra scratch cards that my missus thought might be nice to give to all guests, including me. As luck would have it I had got the wrong ones(!). So whilst in Costas being patronised by my wife, I said as we'd got two 'spare' ones we might as well play them. These were £2 ones (the others were £1) each with 8 (I think) chances of winning. My wife got £5 and I got £20. When I went to cash them, the woman behind the counter was quite helpful (despite the queue behind me) and explained that I hadn't scratched something off, pointing out that I should remember it for 'next time'. I said that this was the first time I'd bought the cards so would quit while I was ahead.
She seemed to be upset about this and said that as I'd 'won £25' I should give it a go. I pointed out, in a friendly manner I thought, that I had actually only won £21 as the tickets cost money. I got a very concerned stare.
I thought then that if I did indeed lost the £20 on the bet on Huhne then I could comfort myself that I had come out £1 ahead.
I reckon that his brief has been in a long and meaningful argument with the CPS, pointing out that it is not the the public's interest to prosecute.
So on that downbeat thought, can I say Happy Christmas to everyone.
Ah, the woman sounded very helpful. You should ask if she'll take any speeding points you have coming...Only slightly connected, this morning I went into WH Smiths as we have two extra guests arriving for Boxing Day and we needed two extra scratch cards that my missus thought might be nice to give to all guests, including me. As luck would have it I had got the wrong ones(!). So whilst in Costas being patronised by my wife, I said as we'd got two 'spare' ones we might as well play them. These were £2 ones (the others were £1) each with 8 (I think) chances of winning. My wife got £5 and I got £20. When I went to cash them, the woman behind the counter was quite helpful (despite the queue behind me) and explained that I hadn't scratched something off, pointing out that I should remember it for 'next time'. I said that this was the first time I'd bought the cards so would quit while I was ahead.
She seemed to be upset about this and said that as I'd 'won £25' I should give it a go. I pointed out, in a friendly manner I thought, that I had actually only won £21 as the tickets cost money. I got a very concerned stare.
I thought then that if I did indeed lost the £20 on the bet on Huhne then I could comfort myself that I had come out £1 ahead.
I reckon that his brief has been in a long and meaningful argument with the CPS, pointing out that it is not the the public's interest to prosecute.
So on that downbeat thought, can I say Happy Christmas to everyone.
hidetheelephants said:
powerstroke said:
My thinking was there are so many who need it!!
would we have the time?? but we
could reserve the slower methods for the worst ones like huhne
Drax can burn biomass these days, so they don't even need to be killed, just stunned and dumped on the conveyor.would we have the time?? but we
could reserve the slower methods for the worst ones like huhne
powerstroke said:
Fantastic idea!!! and it helps with our targets on renwable energy Co2 climate act etc, a truly renewable energy source as one politician is disgraced annother useless corupt self seving twunt seems to spring up to fill the place !!!
We do seem to have an inexhaustible supplyMill Wheel said:
Any ideas why Chris Huhne and his legal team are at Reading Crown Court today? I thought the case was due to be heard later - along with his ex wife.
News is scarce due to a news blackout in place!
No, but Guido reports the same.News is scarce due to a news blackout in place!
http://order-order.com/2013/01/04/it-aint-over/
Taken from another thread: It is possibly a pre-trial hearing where the defence will put a 'no case to answer' submission to the court. One might be tempted to think that the wife will withdraw her statements. Huhne is going which tends to indicate he will come out of the court with a halo and tell the awaiting throng that he's innocent and has no stain on his character.
Derek Smith said:
Taken from another thread: It is possibly a pre-trial hearing where the defence will put a 'no case to answer' submission to the court. One might be tempted to think that the wife will withdraw her statements. Huhne is going which tends to indicate he will come out of the court with a halo and tell the awaiting throng that he's innocent and has no stain on his character.
As HER defence was Maritial Coercion, then if there is found to be no case to answer, does hers not fall automatically?I presume that the fact she has not withdrawn her claim, means that there is other evidence to support the case - emails to the Sunday Times?
I always thought those could be rebutted with a claim of sour grapes from a woman scorned!
Mill Wheel said:
As HER defence was Maritial Coercion, then if there is found to be no case to answer, does hers not fall automatically?
I presume that the fact she has not withdrawn her claim, means that there is other evidence to support the case - emails to the Sunday Times?
I always thought those could be rebutted with a claim of sour grapes from a woman scorned!
I have the feeling that this case will be as twisted as they come. I presume that the fact she has not withdrawn her claim, means that there is other evidence to support the case - emails to the Sunday Times?
I always thought those could be rebutted with a claim of sour grapes from a woman scorned!
Mill Wheel said:
As HER defence was Maritial Coercion, then if there is found to be no case to answer, does hers not fall automatically?
I presume that the fact she has not withdrawn her claim, means that there is other evidence to support the case - emails to the Sunday Times?
I always thought those could be rebutted with a claim of sour grapes from a woman scorned!
It would appear, from information received, that marital coercion in this particular case might not succeed as a complete defence. The law is not in its first flush of youth and there is a suggestion that it will be substantially changed in the near future.I presume that the fact she has not withdrawn her claim, means that there is other evidence to support the case - emails to the Sunday Times?
I always thought those could be rebutted with a claim of sour grapes from a woman scorned!
The nature of the coercion is important to the defence. It might be difficult to prove that she was in fear of substantial physical violence. So what was she so terrified of? Coercion is a complete defence.
If the nature of the coercion is such that it falls short of a defence it can be used in mitigation, and it it possible that it would give rise to a substantial reduction in any penalty but would not stop a conviction.
A plea on behalf of a wife (or ex wife - in fact an ex wife gives the plea more credibility) of coercion is to give evidence against the husband.
One could imagine circumstances where a wife might opt for the defence of coercion and then, when it is shown to be less than dependable, refuse to give evidence in court without committing contempt of court.
If she pleads guilty to the offence and proves, on the balance of probabilities, that she was under some form of duress she is likely to avoid a custodial. If she pleads ng and there is sufficient evidence to convict her then her penalty will be greater, probably inside, even if she uses duress as mitigation.
The above was taken from a brief conversation with someone who is not a specialist in criminal law.
mybrainhurts said:
Your milkman's a right clever dick...
It was from a conversation, albeit mainly on other matters, with a civil lawyer, one specialising in compliance. I don't understand what a compliance lawyer does and I have not bothered to ask as even she reckons it is boring.I'm not aware if it includes delivering milk.
She seems to know what she's talking about to an extent. When I asked her about conveyancing she said she was not competent to advise so she shuts up when she hasn't a clue.
Shame more of us do not follow her example I suppose.
I'm not sure how the coercion idea works - isn't Huhnes ex supposed to have discussed the possibility of taking the points with a female friend who is a judge, who advised against such action?
To continue with such a course after specific advice would require some coercion I think!
At the very least it is evidence of extreme foolishness!
To continue with such a course after specific advice would require some coercion I think!
At the very least it is evidence of extreme foolishness!
Derek Smith said:
She seems to know what she's talking about to an extent. When I asked her about conveyancing she said she was not competent to advise so she shuts up when she hasn't a clue.
Shame more of us do not follow her example I suppose.
Would save Pistonheads a hell of a lot of bandwidth and server space if we did, and give us a lot less time to spend reading the site!Shame more of us do not follow her example I suppose.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff