Crime and punishment

[surveyor_101]

Zetec-S said:

I'm certainly no fan of Corbyn and co, but to be fair, surely it's a case of innocent until proven guilty?

More telling will be the reaction (or more likely inaction) if she is found guilty.

Suspension would seem to appropriate reaction when she goes to trial.

[Derek Smith]

Starfighter said:

It does look from the Twitter feeds and other reporting that the defense has done little to counter the allegations made.Some of the prosecution questions also lacked any apparent depth. It could be that we are missing part of the story:-
Who signed the S172? - RK is required to do this and it is implied that it is her signature (assuming her to be the RK). Her defense is that she left the document at her mothers without completing it. Is this supposed to cast doubt on her and defect the entire case at the brother completing the form? Was the S172 paperwork even presented to her to confirm her signature / hand writing?
Who was driving? - The paperwork stated the Russian who was shown to be out of the country at the time. Now she lists half the county as possible drivers. Who is covered on the insurance? Where / with whom did she leave the car and keys?
Where was she at the time? - The prosecution places her phones in the area (no indication if this was cell pings or active calls), A witness places her alone with the car at their home close by the camera site just prior the it being triggered but the defense has said nothing beyond her not knowing where she was at the time. I would have expected an MP to have a detailed diary of appointments but nothing was presented.

The most difficult defence to counter is the one perfected by Quentin Crisp, he of the brilliantly written, Naked Civil Servant. Well worth a read.

He would admit certain aspects of the offence and then come up with a counter explanation. In his case it was one that would elicit sympathy from the jurors. It's difficult for a prosecution to counter. In the case of QC he played the lovable clown. I often think of Johnson when I see him, although more weirdly dressed, when hit with a difficult situation.

I've been to court a great deal but I never got used to it. It is not so much sobering as nerve wracking to know that one's evidence, if poorly presented, could destroy the prosecution case. If the evidence was overwhelming I was often physically sick before my turn in the box. Mind you, it concentrated the mind a bit. I always felt sharper after vomiting.

In this case it would appear that what the prosecution has to prove was simple enough. It is the counter to the defence that's difficult. If there was one bolt hole then the prosecution could present evidence in chief to block it, but here there are a multitude of avenues to escape, and the woman appears to be using most.

Much will depend on the cross-examination of her evidence and how she presents herself. The judge's summing up/directions might be critical.

Then there's the appeal if found guilty.

[Bigends]

Starfighter said:

It does look from the Twitter feeds and other reporting that the defense has done little to counter the allegations made.Some of the prosecution questions also lacked any apparent depth. It could be that we are missing part of the story:-
Who signed the S172? - RK is required to do this and it is implied that it is her signature (assuming her to be the RK). Her defense is that she left the document at her mothers without completing it. Is this supposed to cast doubt on her and defect the entire case at the brother completing the form? Was the S172 paperwork even presented to her to confirm her signature / hand writing?
Who was driving? - The paperwork stated the Russian who was shown to be out of the country at the time. Now she lists half the county as possible drivers. Who is covered on the insurance? Where / with whom did she leave the car and keys?
Where was she at the time? - The prosecution places her phones in the area (no indication if this was cell pings or active calls), A witness places her alone with the car at their home close by the camera site just prior the it being triggered but the defense has said nothing beyond her not knowing where she was at the time. I would have expected an MP to have a detailed diary of appointments but nothing was presented.

Just because her phone was pinged - prove she was with it at the time! Its good supporting evidence but not conclusive

[Starfighter]

Bigends said:

Just because her phone was pinged - prove she was with it at the time! Its good supporting evidence but not conclusive

Agreed, a cell tower ping from a phone shows that it was in the area but not the person. I would have expected the prosecution to ask questions about why the phone was pinged at that location. Tally the pings with actual (outgoing) use etc.

[surveyor_101]

Starfighter said:

Agreed, a cell tower ping from a phone shows that it was in the area but not the person. I would have expected the prosecution to ask questions about why the phone was pinged at that location. Tally the pings with actual (outgoing) use etc.

Witness places her and car in the area as well, her ex aid.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Schmed said:

This section 172 is unique not only in the UK but in the civilised world in that it requires you to incriminate yourself on pain of a penalty. It is an abhorrent piece of law and against all principles of fairness.

PCOJ for a minor misdemeanour like speeding, which is barely even a crime, is truely insane, we are now operating in a police state.

The UK prefers to identify & deal with offenders who commit offences , rather more civilised than dishing out fines to registered keepers who have not committed the offence.

A 172 doesn't mean you are guilty of an offence where you identify yourself as the driver, whether you have indeed committed an offence or not as the driver is a matter of fact to be established/considered after that.
I've received 172 notices & identified myself as the driver, it doesn't mean I was guilty of an offence though, my actions determine whether that was the case.

PtCOJ is not a minor misdemeanour because you consider it so. Speeding is fairly minor, but again not because you say it is so.

If you’re going to prosecute for speeding it should be done after being pulled over at the side of the road, presuming the police can catch you. Anything else, using cameras etc and mailing out nips days later is sneaky, underhanded and the workings of a police state - which all rests on the highly flawed process that is s172.

[vonhosen]

Schmed said:

vonhosen said:

Schmed said:

This section 172 is unique not only in the UK but in the civilised world in that it requires you to incriminate yourself on pain of a penalty. It is an abhorrent piece of law and against all principles of fairness.

PCOJ for a minor misdemeanour like speeding, which is barely even a crime, is truely insane, we are now operating in a police state.

The UK prefers to identify & deal with offenders who commit offences , rather more civilised than dishing out fines to registered keepers who have not committed the offence.

A 172 doesn't mean you are guilty of an offence where you identify yourself as the driver, whether you have indeed committed an offence or not as the driver is a matter of fact to be established/considered after that.
I've received 172 notices & identified myself as the driver, it doesn't mean I was guilty of an offence though, my actions determine whether that was the case.

PtCOJ is not a minor misdemeanour because you consider it so. Speeding is fairly minor, but again not because you say it is so.

If you’re going to prosecute for speeding it should be done after being pulled over at the side of the road, presuming the police can catch you. Anything else, using cameras etc and mailing out nips days later is sneaky, underhanded and the workings of a police state - which all rests on the highly flawed process that is s172.

172 isn't the preserve of camera detections & it's not restricted to speeding offences.
Driving is a regulated/licenced activity that you choose to engage in along with all that goes with it including 172.
Nothing sneaky or underhanded about it at all.

[jfire]

Another twist AKA lie

"A Labour MP accused of lying to police about a speeding offence has told a court that her brother set her up by filling in a form with false details and forging her signature."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/mp-fiona-o...

[surveyor_101]

jfire said:

Another twist AKA lie

"A Labour MP accused of lying to police about a speeding offence has told a court that her brother set her up by filling in a form with false details and forging her signature."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/mp-fiona-o...

Oh dear she really is ignorant.

She confirmed in a phone call logged with a detective when he called her in parlimentry office that she had filled the form.

Hopefully this vale of lies is seen through by the jury.

So now she is throughing her brother under the bus. If thats accepted what charge could be added to her brothers wrap sheet? Fraud by false rep?

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

172 isn't the preserve of camera detections & it's not restricted to speeding offences.

Yes but the whole cameras & fines system is solely reliant upon it, and our rights & freedoms not to self incriminate have been sacrified for it. This I find outrageous and it is disingenuous and tendentious to pretend otherwise.

vonhosen said:

Driving is a regulated/licenced activity that you choose to engage in along with all that goes with it including 172.
Nothing sneaky or underhanded about it at all.

Irrespective of activity we should not have to sacrifice basic freedoms such as these to accommodate a fine system that is all about a political agenda, i.e. raising revenue and discouraging driving by any means necessary.

[Zetec-S]

Schmed said:

Irrespective of activity we should not have to sacrifice basic freedoms such as these to accommodate a fine system that is all about a political agenda, i.e. raising revenue and discouraging driving by any means necessary.

So what is your alternative method of enforcement?

[S11Steve]

I'm wondering why her mother hasn't been called as witnesses to verify her version of events, or would that possibly land all three of them in further trouble?

[Derek Smith]

Schmed said:

Irrespective of activity we should not have to sacrifice basic freedoms such as these to accommodate a fine system that is all about a political agenda, i.e. raising revenue and discouraging driving by any means necessary.

Drivers are not on the road by right. They are there by regulation. Part of the regulations require you to prove you have authority to be on the road. No one's freedoms are being blocked in any way. If you don't like the rules, don't take part. Go by public transport or cycle.

[surveyor_101]

Derek Smith said:

Drivers are not on the road by right. They are there by regulation. Part of the regulations require you to prove you have authority to be on the road. No one's freedoms are being blocked in any way. If you don't like the rules, don't take part. Go by public transport or cycle.

If like some criminals the car is untraceble then they can laugh at this camera and post enforement system.

This family wouldn't of been able to take the mick if the police weren't so lazy.

I think there should be a road block and officers have to deal with the physical drivers, we have video and my colleague got you at 41mph in 30, would stop fraud and folk like the Beckhams claiming the S.172 was late in the post. Its the laziest of policing in my opinion.

The Tories vowed to end the war but my police force do little else now adays they paint rainbow stripes on their cars and engage with the gay community and speed enforcement, they have stopped investigating most minor crimes.

Instead police forces are investing more and more in speed camera tech.

Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 21st November 13:20

[S11Steve]

surveyor_101 said:

If like some criminals the car is untraceble then they can laugh at this camera and post enforement system.

Or they send of the V5 section for permanent export, then put a series of false European plates on the car.
There's quite a few RHD Polish and Bulgarian vehicles around at the moment!

[vonhosen]

Schmed said:

vonhosen said:

172 isn't the preserve of camera detections & it's not restricted to speeding offences.

Yes but the whole cameras & fines system is solely reliant upon it, and our rights & freedoms not to self incriminate have been sacrified for it. This I find outrageous and it is disingenuous and tendentious to pretend otherwise.

You are not self incriminating, you are complying with regulation. You don't have to take part in the regulated activity, you choose to. You are not free to engage in the regulated activity without complying with the regulations.
As I've already said, putting yourself up as the driver does not mean you are guilty of an offence. That is a separate matter of fact to be dealt with at a later date.

Schmed said:

vonhosen said:

Driving is a regulated/licenced activity that you choose to engage in along with all that goes with it including 172.
Nothing sneaky or underhanded about it at all.

Irrespective of activity we should not have to sacrifice basic freedoms such as these to accommodate a fine system that is all about a political agenda, i.e. raising revenue and discouraging driving by any means necessary.

You don't have the freedom to drive on the roads outside of the regulations. It's not a right. You agree to be bound by the regulations in order to have the privileges gained within the regulated activity. If you don't want to be bound by them don't engage in the activity. Walk, cycle, get a bus or Uber instead, then you don't have to engage in the regulated activity. 172 (or in other form) has been around a long long time. Long long before any enforcement cameras existed.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 21st November 13:23

[vonhosen]

S11Steve said:

surveyor_101 said:

If like some criminals the car is untraceble then they can laugh at this camera and post enforement system.

Or they send of the V5 section for permanent export, then put a series of false European plates on the car.
There's quite a few RHD Polish and Bulgarian vehicles around at the moment!

Criminals will be criminals.
We all have the choice to be that or not too.
You makes your choice & take the consequences of it.

[surveyor_101]

vonhosen said:

Criminals will be criminals.
We all have the choice to be that or not too.
You makes your choice & take the consequences of it.

Yes but some peoples car aren't even legal to be on the road and thats being ignored and just posting speeding fine.

Then the only people trageted are those who are legal in all other aspects.

Drink driving etc, no insurance, no tax are all bottom of priorties just 5mph over the limit.

The endorsement process is a joke as well!

Your suppose to send your licence for endorsement and wait 3 weeks, You can pay £6.50 to send it special delivery they send it back after 3 weeks of holding just at 2nd class post and take NO responsbility for it getting back to me. So they lose it in the system and you have to pay the DVLA for a new one.

They only need it to amend an electronic record no counterparts are null and void. Its so not fit for purpose!

Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 21st November 14:49

[vonhosen]

surveyor_101 said:

vonhosen said:

Criminals will be criminals.
We all have the choice to be that or not too.
You makes your choice & take the consequences of it.

Yes but some peoples car aren't even legal to be on the road and thats being ignored and just posting speeding fines.

Then the only people trageted are those who are legal in all other aspects.

Drink driving etc, no insurance, no tax are all bottom of priorties just 5mph over the limit.

The endorsement process is a joke as well!

It's not ignored, people are prosecuted for all of the above where detected.
Speeding is just more prevalent than all of the above.
Illegal parking is more prevalent still & more people receive tickets for that.

[S11Steve]

Summing up is being reported at the moment.

Defence counsel claims that Fiona Onasanya MP is not a woman who lies, lies an lies again.

Prosecutor says she was "flexible with the truth" and told a "succession of lies over many months". Defence barrister counters the MP is not dishonest but made a "simple mistake" during a chaotic start to her Parliamentary career.

Looks like she is trying to throw her brother to the lions as well.

"Christine Agnew QC heaped blame onto Festus, describing him as a “charming chancer”. When they went together to be interviewed by police, he was “banking” on her status as a solicitor and MP to get him “out of the hole”, jurors were told.

Ms Agnew said: “He is a chancer and he is a dishonest chancer. He is somebody who will manipulate anyone to get out of a hole. If he was driving that is exactly the motivation that would be required to fill that form out wrong.” She suggested Festus filled in the form as he had done it before and “he thought he could get away with it”. He already had nine points on his licence and risked disqualification, and his job as a delivery driver, she said."

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/pet...

Edited by S11Steve on Wednesday 21st November 15:12