Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.
Discussion
saaby93 said:
Slaav said:
No news or update yet today?
Wikipedia's been updated'At the trial, Onasanya said she does not know who was driving on 24 July 2017. She said that she initially mistakenly assumed that she could not have been driving the car on 24 July 2017 and left a notice of intended prosecution to be dealt with by whoever had been driving. Her brother, she said, then likely returned the form claiming someone else had been driving. Over a year later, she realised that she did have an appointment that would be consistent with her being the driver. She said that she could not remember whether she kept the appointment.'
Is the verdict to be unanimous?
Again from elsewhere, evidence was submitted claiming that when eventually questioned she on two occasions stated that she Stood by HER nomination!! That in itself certainly implies that she admits it was HER nomination..... I wonder how the D addressed that little glitch in her web of deceit??
Investigators also questioned her and I believe she said she had nothing further to add to previous answers. This appears (clearly I wasn’t there nor did I attend court) as if she is certainly cuclpable for the false declaration? Whether wee brother Festus did forge her sognature or not, she claimed it was her???
Deliberating for this long sounds as though there may be one or two jurors hanging in there for a NG?
Slaav said:
Deliberating for this long sounds as though there may be one or two jurors hanging in there for a NG?
Minds will be refocused in the next couple of hours - the jurors won't want to be back next weekJudge could well allow a majority but then if it is still split will have to dismiss them. If that happens the CPS will have to decide on the merits of a retrial.
If She gets away with this, it will be a travesty , She is clearly telling porkies. As to the Jury still being out , I recall when I did Jury service some years back One of the jurors , a bloke refused to find the defendants guilty , irrespective of the glareing evidence they were a guilty as hell. They were sent dow, but in a majority verdict because of matey .
Hosenbugler said:
If She gets away with this, it will be a travesty , She is clearly telling porkies..
Why is it clear?Either what she says adds up
or as the prosecution suggests -it's all a pack of lies
Both would say what they have
Do they have a good lunch while deliberating?
Edited by saaby93 on Friday 23 November 13:04
douglasb said:
Slaav said:
Is it compulsory incarceration if guilty?
It isn't compulsory but is very likely. “Sentencing
The maximum sentence that can be imposed for perverting the course of justice is life imprisonment and/or a fine. However, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) sentencing guidelines recommend a prison sentence for this crime of between four and 36 months.”
So pretty likely HMP for her if Guilty and guaranteed for Festus?
saaby93 said:
Hosenbugler said:
If She gets away with this, it will be a travesty , She is clearly telling porkies..
Why is it clear?Either what she says adds up
or as the prosecution suggests -it's all a pack of lies
But they would say that, otherwise it's been a waste of time
It does annoy me when anyone feels they are above the law, but it especially irks when it is those people who make the law. It is also inexcusable by a person who is a solicitor and should know the law. She deserves to go to prison imho.
saaby93 said:
Hosenbugler said:
If She gets away with this, it will be a travesty , She is clearly telling porkies..
Why is it clear?Either what she says adds up
or as the prosecution suggests -it's all a pack of lies
Both would say what they have
Do they have a good lunch while deliberating?
Edited by saaby93 on Friday 23 November 13:04
As it's a criminal case she's just trying so sow the seeds of doubt, which is enough to get off.
She is clearly full of s
t, and that doesn't change just because it's a criminal trial. keith333 said:
saaby93 said:
Hosenbugler said:
If She gets away with this, it will be a travesty , She is clearly telling porkies..
Why is it clear?Either what she says adds up
or as the prosecution suggests -it's all a pack of lies
But they would say that, otherwise it's been a waste of time
It does annoy me when anyone feels they are above the law, but it especially irks when it is those people who make the law. It is also inexcusable by a person who is a solicitor and should know the law. She deserves to go to prison imho.
like a saddo but I 8magine part of her briefs defence/closing statements would have hinges on the risk/reward here? Why on earth risk HMP vs 3 pts on an otherwise clean DVLA?But we’ve seen it all before haven’t we???
Constance Briscoe (yes that fine upstanding member of the judiciary) - “On 1 May 2014 she was found guilty at the Old Bailey of three charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice, by lying to police, falsifying a witness statement, and providing a false document to an expert witness. On 2 May 2014 she was jailed for 16 months.[1” (wiki)
zbc said:
I voted for her. There was no way I was voting for the conservative candidate who was appalling and the Lib Dem had no chance. I assume she would get deselected for this at the very least even if found not guilty.
You say that, but Jackson was the only MP I've ever had who listened to concerns and actually got something done. Involved Mobile phone mast and fibrebroadband for the village. He managed to poke and prod the right people it seems. No idea what he is like as an individual though, never met him. I've not met this Fiona whatsit either, but I know somebody who comes into contact with her, and reckons she's a proper piece of work. Perhaps thats the default way of politicians per se, epic failures as people. The delay might suggest that the majority of the jury have gone one way, but one or two are holding out the other way. If so then the judge might eventually declare that a majority is good enough?
Tricky case, the jury must all know she is an MP as that is part of the reason she was driving that night. So how do you make sure they aren't all rabid corbynites who will just go for Not Guilty just because in their crazed world they think that will get rid of May!!?!!
Tricky case, the jury must all know she is an MP as that is part of the reason she was driving that night. So how do you make sure they aren't all rabid corbynites who will just go for Not Guilty just because in their crazed world they think that will get rid of May!!?!!
kev1974 said:
The delay might suggest that the majority of the jury have gone one way, but one or two are holding out the other way. If so then the judge might eventually declare that a majority is good enough?
Tricky case, the jury must all know she is an MP as that is part of the reason she was driving that night. So how do you make sure they aren't all rabid corbynites who will just go for Not Guilty just because in their crazed world they think that will get rid of May!!?!!
If she wasnt an MP, or a labour MP, would some posters view this case differently?Tricky case, the jury must all know she is an MP as that is part of the reason she was driving that night. So how do you make sure they aren't all rabid corbynites who will just go for Not Guilty just because in their crazed world they think that will get rid of May!!?!!
Hosenbugler said:
zbc said:
I voted for her. There was no way I was voting for the conservative candidate who was appalling and the Lib Dem had no chance. I assume she would get deselected for this at the very least even if found not guilty.
You say that, but Jackson was the only MP I've ever had who listened to concerns and actually got something done. Involved Mobile phone mast and fibrebroadband for the village. He managed to poke and prod the right people it seems. No idea what he is like as an individual though, never met him. I've not met this Fiona whatsit either, but I know somebody who comes into contact with her, and reckons she's a proper piece of work. Perhaps thats the default way of politicians per se, epic failures as people. Why is there a massive thread on this? Why are you lot so keen for her to have life/career changing repercussions for this
PCOJ is a joke most of the time, but especially so when used to apply the full force of the law on a trivial speeding ticket. It makes me ashamed to be British, and I view it in the same way the law deals with journalists in the UAE.
PCOJ is a joke most of the time, but especially so when used to apply the full force of the law on a trivial speeding ticket. It makes me ashamed to be British, and I view it in the same way the law deals with journalists in the UAE.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff