Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.

[julian64]

Willhire89 said:

julian64 said:

Why is there a massive thread on this? Why are you lot so keen for her to have life/career changing repercussions for this

Err - because she is an MP and a solicitor maybe?

Ah okay she works in the legal profession. As you were phaser set to maximum.

[essayer]

Judge will accept a majority verdict

[Vizsla]

essayer said:

Judge will accept a majority verdict

Oh dear, not looking good for her. I suspect that the average punter on the Clapham Omnibus can smell BS a mile off.

[Europa1]

julian64 said:

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.

This seems to imply you think there are crimes to which perverting the course of justice shouldn't apply.

[julian64]

Europa1 said:

julian64 said:

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.

This seems to imply you think there are crimes to which perverting the course of justice shouldn't apply.

If there are crimes you think the accused should not try to evade then you should also get rid of lawyers.

[saaby93]

Europa1 said:

julian64 said:

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.

This seems to imply you think there are crimes to which perverting the course of justice shouldn't apply.

Crime and punishment is generally about what harm was caused.

For instance in this particular case what harm was caused, who was wronged and what punishment is being sought for it?

[Camoradi]

saaby93 said:

Crime and punishment is generally about what harm was caused.

For instance in this particular case what harm was caused, and what punishment is being sought for it?

If she was the driver, what harm would it have done her to take the points or attend a speed awareness course?

Considering she is one of the people who makes the laws in this country it would only seem appropriate that she abide by them.

[saaby93]

Camoradi said:

saaby93 said:

Crime and punishment is generally about what harm was caused.

For instance in this particular case what harm was caused, and what punishment is being sought for it?

If she was the driver, what harm would it have done her to take the points or attend a speed awareness course?

Considering she is one of the people who makes the laws in this country it would only seem appropriate that she abide by them.

Isnt that what Julian was saying too Retribution?

[Camoradi]

saaby93 said:

Retribution?

what?

ETA... You edited your reply after I posted. Retribution for what? She's done me no personal harm.

Best the jury decide

Edited by Camoradi on Friday 23 November 16:26

[eldar]

saaby93 said:

Crime and punishment is generally about what harm was caused.

For instance in this particular case what harm was caused, who was wronged and what punishment is being sought for it?

An innocent person is wrongly convicted?

[anonymous-user]

julian64 said:

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.

I think it’s fair enough to expect those who are paid to make and implement the laws that others must abide by to abide by them themselves.

And to be exceptionally punished should they abuse them and their positions.

[saaby93]

REALIST123 said:

julian64 said:

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.

I think it’s fair enough to expect those who are paid to make and implement the laws that others must abide by to abide by them themselves.

And to be exceptionally punished should they abuse them and their positions.

While accepting the first, it's still not clear the second has happened.
How difficult is it to get a dozen people to agree on something.

[Earthdweller]

julian64 said:

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.

It’s not about the severity of the original offence .. it’s the lying under oath

It is an offence which undermines the whole basis of the justice system

People, who make a declaration that they are telling the truth should be punished if they are found out to be lying .. especially if that results in a miscarriage of justice

And the sentencing reflects the original offence .. hence why you can get life for pcoj

[98elise]

saaby93 said:

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?

No...the story is ridiculous. If it was someone on here saying that was their defence they would be ridiculed.

[Europa1]

julian64 said:

Europa1 said:

julian64 said:

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.

This seems to imply you think there are crimes to which perverting the course of justice shouldn't apply.

If there are crimes you think the accused should not try to evade then you should also get rid of lawyers.

That's not what I think at all.

[Exige77]

She’s part of the law making process.

If she is seen to be above the law and tell lies on oath, then to me it’s a serious offence and should be punished accordingly.

[poo at Paul's]

She'll get off, of course she will. She aint a "Tory".


Then, when her bro has taken the rap for her, and he is out after 5 months, she will be employing him as an "aid" on £60k a year of taxpayers money!


I'll cut me old chap off, if I am wrong and mail it to Lord Sugar!

Edited by poo at Paul's on Friday 23 November 16:58

[saaby93]

Any bets on them coming to a conclusion by tea time

So it's either she's told the truth all the way through and can put it all behind her
or the prosecution claim that its a pack of lies wins and shes done fo

[essayer]

saaby93 said:

Any bets on them coming to a conclusion by tea time

So it's either she's told the truth all the way through and can put it all behind her
or the prosecution claim that its a pack of lies wins and shes done fo

Monday now.

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

REALIST123 said:

julian64 said:

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.

I think it’s fair enough to expect those who are paid to make and implement the laws that others must abide by to abide by them themselves.

And to be exceptionally punished should they abuse them and their positions.

While accepting the first, it's still not clear the second has happened.
How difficult is it to get a dozen people to agree on something.

What? It’s happened many times.