Crime and punishment
Discussion
CoolHands said:
she's going to say the brother filled in the paperwork - he's already in for a penny (admitted guilty); and her signing the paperwork is just a formality which isn't something with serious consequence, it will just be a minor reprimand no doubt.
What he opened her speeding ticket or she asked him to deal with it naming her and he just happened to put his name? She signed it without reading oh dear what an oversite. How does she defend that after she found out he had done that she didn't inform authroities?Nice must be great being Corbyns left hand whip lady who wants to pervert the course of justice so we have a society for the many not the jew,, sorry few.
surveyor_101 said:
Red Devil said:
S.172 does not establish guilt either. It merely identifies who has a case to answer. Nobody is denied their day in court to defend the allegation. The prosecution still have to prove their case.
I got NIP last month and sent it back for speed awareness and got a letter back with bold letters saying you have admitted the offence but you have already done a SAC in the last 3 years, so pay the fine and send your licence off.The latter is what it says on the tin. If S.172 is not issued/not complied with, no prosecution can take place because the state has no proof of who the driver is.
That's why TPTB decided to make the points punishment for the 'failing to furnish' by the RK greater than the one against the driver for a low level speeding offence.
The offer (which is entirely at the discretion of the police) of a SAC is an alternative to prosecution. It's solely your choice whether to accept it.
You did, but your 'previous' disqualified you from being eligible. Unfortunately they managed to 'join the dots' and discovered that awkward fact.
surveyor_101 said:
I assume I am guilty now should I chose a court appareance?
What you decide to assume is up to you. The SAC is merely an alternative disposal carrot.*. It was your free choice to go for it.Until you did, your presumption of innocence still existed. At that point, you could still have opted for a trial.
* It's purpose is obvious: to save time and reduce the cost to the public purse.
We're drifting off topic already and we're still only on page 1.
I'm would be more interested in your opinion about the case I posted.
Do you think the MP did what is alleged and, if so, what should the sentence be?
Red Devil said:
What you decide to assume is up to you. The SAC is merely an alternative disposal carrot.*. It was your free choice to go for it.
Until you did, your presumption of innocence still existed. At that point, you could still have opted for a trial.
* It's purpose is obvious: to save time and reduce the cost to the public purse.
We're drifting off topic already and we're still only on page 1.
I'm would be more interested in your opinion about the case I posted.
Do you think the MP did what is alleged and, if so, what should the sentence be?
Until you did, your presumption of innocence still existed. At that point, you could still have opted for a trial.
* It's purpose is obvious: to save time and reduce the cost to the public purse.
We're drifting off topic already and we're still only on page 1.
I'm would be more interested in your opinion about the case I posted.
Do you think the MP did what is alleged and, if so, what should the sentence be?
Yes getting back on topic>
I would hope she would have to stand down as MP and either way now. If she is found guilty of APCofJ then a 6 months inside out in 3. I assume she has points already that has not been aired? I can't imagine why a clean licence holder would try this on.
(Note on the pics for mine there is a zoom in on the driver to make it easier to identify I assume)
She is the second mp to play fast and lose with the NIP and they seem to throw the book Chris and his ex wife. Funny though she went back into a well paid goverment job when she got out. I think you should be bared from holding such a role for 6 years after being convicted and going to prison.
The justice system seems to view it pretty dimly and I would expect getting a fresh SC clearance if I had done such a thing would be a no no. So how can you have a well paid mp or goverment job?
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 14th November 13:29
surveyor_101 said:
I would hope she would have to stand down as MP and either way now. If she is found guilty of APCofJ then a 6 months inside out in 3. I assume she has points already that has not been aired? I can't imagine why a clean licence holder would try this on.
The justice system seems to view it pretty dimly and I would expect getting a fresh SC clearance if I had done such a thing would be a no no. So how can you have a well paid mp or goverment job?
If she is found guilty then that alone is not enough to mean she is kicked out. If you is sentenced to more than a year, then she is disqualifed from sitting as an MP for a year. Oddly, she may seek reelection. If her sonstituents feel so motivated they can return her. And probably will.The justice system seems to view it pretty dimly and I would expect getting a fresh SC clearance if I had done such a thing would be a no no. So how can you have a well paid mp or goverment job?
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 14th November 13:29
Latest https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
Apparently her brother had claimed a russian man (who was the previous tenant of their joint rental flat) was driving his car twice when he was caught speeding and got away with it so she thought excellent idea i will do the same.
However the police noticed the pattern of the brother and sister and the same untracable russian guy 'Aleks Antipow' who was in russian at the time Also she used the telephone number of her brothers delivery driver guy, so thats assocaited with her brother.
She would not answer questions on who was driving her car in jan 18 police interview. These progressive left wing socialist are just all heart for the people. I wonder what else she is fiddling.
Apparently her brother had claimed a russian man (who was the previous tenant of their joint rental flat) was driving his car twice when he was caught speeding and got away with it so she thought excellent idea i will do the same.
However the police noticed the pattern of the brother and sister and the same untracable russian guy 'Aleks Antipow' who was in russian at the time Also she used the telephone number of her brothers delivery driver guy, so thats assocaited with her brother.
She would not answer questions on who was driving her car in jan 18 police interview. These progressive left wing socialist are just all heart for the people. I wonder what else she is fiddling.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 14th November 16:00
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 14th November 16:01
The case was adjourned this afternoon.
"Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC explained to jurors that the "parties have drawn to my attention a matter during the break and it just needs checking from everybody's point of view". The case has been adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, November 15 at 10.15am."
"Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC explained to jurors that the "parties have drawn to my attention a matter during the break and it just needs checking from everybody's point of view". The case has been adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, November 15 at 10.15am."
markjmd said:
Not to mention also that nobody in this country is forced to own or drive a car (or van, motorcycle, etc).
If you think S172 is unfair or unconstitutional, the answer's simple - use public transport, or get a cab
And it has been around, in one form or another, since 1935.If you think S172 is unfair or unconstitutional, the answer's simple - use public transport, or get a cab
CoolHands said:
has she found a legal loophole I wonder
I expect so, she is either very clever solicter (trained - does that mean she didn't have career) or she is very conceited and not very clever and thinks she can just say no comment and get away with it.I suppose unlike her brother she thinks there isnt much harm now she has been caught it not admitting it and hoping she can plant some doubt at trial.
S11Steve said:
. . . "parties have drawn to my attention a matter during the break and it just needs checking from everybody's point of view"
Is not a reassuring comment by the judge. It probably means he's going to open some books and do some checking. From what I've read, which is obviously rather skimpy, there seems to be few avenues for escape other than that her brother took all this on himself without consulting her.One assumes her bro is going to give evidence in defence and this 'matter' might be additional evidence to negate/support his testimony.
We'll know tomorrow in all probability, but it doesn't sound good for the prosecution.
Derek Smith said:
surveyor_101 said:
I would hope she would have to stand down as MP and either way now. If she is found guilty of APCofJ then a 6 months inside out in 3. I assume she has points already that has not been aired? I can't imagine why a clean licence holder would try this on.
The justice system seems to view it pretty dimly and I would expect getting a fresh SC clearance if I had done such a thing would be a no no. So how can you have a well paid mp or goverment job?
If she is found guilty then that alone is not enough to mean she is kicked out. If you is sentenced to more than a year, then she is disqualifed from sitting as an MP for a year. Oddly, she may seek reelection. If her sonstituents feel so motivated they can return her. And probably will.The justice system seems to view it pretty dimly and I would expect getting a fresh SC clearance if I had done such a thing would be a no no. So how can you have a well paid mp or goverment job?
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 14th November 13:29
It only needs 10% of the registered electorate to ratify the petition and she's out.
With a majority of only 607 at her election I reckon it might not be that hard to garner that percentage.
She can stand again* when a by-election is called but with such a slim majority I reckon she's on a sticky wicket.
* If Corbyn has any sense, he'll tell her to fall on her sword and then look for a safer seat to parachute her into at the next General Election.
Not sure where you get the one year from btw. The Act makes no mention of the length of the sentence imposed.
surveyor_101 said:
Latest? Methinks not: that's the article I linked to when starting the thread. Red Devil said:
Latest? Methinks not: that's the article I linked to when starting the thread.
Sadly in some areas the MP is not important its just which flag they sit under.We have a terrible MP were I live but its TORY -swing- LIB DEM area and labour have a tiny base. Labour don't even bother with a candidate most years.
I can't imagine many people vote for Abbott as she seems to really get her figures and policies in a muddle, its just they don't want a Tory so a pot plant with the red ribbon would garner a majority.
Zetec-S said:
surveyor_101 said:
I can't imagine many people vote for Abbott as she seems to really get her figures and policies in a muddle, its just they don't want a Tory so a pot plant with the red ribbon woulddoes garner a majority.
FTFYGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff