Chris Huhne... going soon?
Discussion
The Don of Croy said:
singlecoil said:
I disagree. Most couples are exactly that, couples. In a situation where points will put the main breadwinner's licence at risk, the points swapping will still take place, only from now on both parties will keep quiet about it divorce or not.
Are you sure about this? Perhaps you can provide some evidence to prove 'In a situation where points will put the main breadwinner's licence at risk, the points swapping will still take place'.
etc...
FiF said:
singlecoil said:
Well, it is the offence in the case under discussion, but if you wish to widen the debate, feel free to bring other cases before me, and, if I have time, I will be happy to issue sentencing guidelines for each of them.
You can't try and place a diversionary answer like that and then make a reference to the sentencing guidelines in a later post. Wel you can, but it just doesn't wash with the rest of us.The offence of PtCoJ is but one offence, for which there are sentencing guidelines covering a very wide range of possibilities. You know this as evidenced by other posts.
The thing is Mr. Coil that Huhne and the then Mrs. Huhne clearly knew what the implications of their decisions would be from the start. Many others from lower positions in life and with less intelligence probably don't. Trivial as the original 'crime' may have been they have exhibited a lack of concern for upholding the Law not withstanding that Huhne was (and recently the former Mrs. Huhne expressed a desire to be) what the Americans call 'Lawmakers'.
Would you trust these people to make laws for you and your family to follow knowing that had little or no intention of following them themselves? Perhaps you think they might make better Laws for being more pragmatic and being able to pick and choose which subjects close to their personal belief systems should be strictly obeyed and which should not?
Back in the old days when politicians, mostly, still had some respectable qualities, they used to resign and disappear for less problematic misdemeanors as soon as they became public knowledge (assuming they ever did). Now perjury and theft from the public purse seem to be accepted and rehabilitation by their peers, perhaps fearing their own fate at some future point, is encouraged.
It seems that the Politicians are now visibly as amoral as they claim about the bankers and the remnants of what people used to refer to as the Mainstream Media.
Huhne will no doubt find some way to follow Archer, Aitken and Ahmed along the path to career and fiscal redemption. The other 99.99% of the population, of which you and I are probably members, would simply be shafted by a political system that does not give a damn for any but its own.
Nice of you to speak up for Huhne - I doubt he would do the same for you unless you are family, a friend, a colleague or, more certainly to engage his attention, an employer paying for his time. Even then you might find his support at a much lower level than you had hoped unless he is the main benefactor. It's the way the system works.
Would you trust these people to make laws for you and your family to follow knowing that had little or no intention of following them themselves? Perhaps you think they might make better Laws for being more pragmatic and being able to pick and choose which subjects close to their personal belief systems should be strictly obeyed and which should not?
Back in the old days when politicians, mostly, still had some respectable qualities, they used to resign and disappear for less problematic misdemeanors as soon as they became public knowledge (assuming they ever did). Now perjury and theft from the public purse seem to be accepted and rehabilitation by their peers, perhaps fearing their own fate at some future point, is encouraged.
It seems that the Politicians are now visibly as amoral as they claim about the bankers and the remnants of what people used to refer to as the Mainstream Media.
Huhne will no doubt find some way to follow Archer, Aitken and Ahmed along the path to career and fiscal redemption. The other 99.99% of the population, of which you and I are probably members, would simply be shafted by a political system that does not give a damn for any but its own.
Nice of you to speak up for Huhne - I doubt he would do the same for you unless you are family, a friend, a colleague or, more certainly to engage his attention, an employer paying for his time. Even then you might find his support at a much lower level than you had hoped unless he is the main benefactor. It's the way the system works.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Presumably his former colleagues in Westminster are, as I type, urgently preparing a new bill to exclude certain crimes from (excessive) prosecution. It would, after all, be in their interests to do so - always provided they can make it apply to them but not the rest of the public who might otherwise be out of their control.LongQ said:
The thing is Mr. Coil that Huhne and the then Mrs. Huhne clearly knew what the implications of their decisions would be from the start. Many others from lower positions in life and with less intelligence probably don't. Trivial as the original 'crime' may have been they have exhibited a lack of concern for upholding the Law not withstanding that Huhne was (and recently the former Mrs. Huhne expressed a desire to be) what the Americans call 'Lawmakers'.
Would you trust these people to make laws for you and your family to follow knowing that had little or no intention of following them themselves? Perhaps you think they might make better Laws for being more pragmatic and being able to pick and choose which subjects close to their personal belief systems should be strictly obeyed and which should not?
Back in the old days when politicians, mostly, still had some respectable qualities, they used to resign and disappear for less problematic misdemeanors as soon as they became public knowledge (assuming they ever did). Now perjury and theft from the public purse seem to be accepted and rehabilitation by their peers, perhaps fearing their own fate at some future point, is encouraged.
It seems that the Politicians are now visibly as amoral as they claim about the bankers and the remnants of what people used to refer to as the Mainstream Media.
Huhne will no doubt find some way to follow Archer, Aitken and Ahmed along the path to career and fiscal redemption. The other 99.99% of the population, of which you and I are probably members, would simply be shafted by a political system that does not give a damn for any but its own.
Nice of you to speak up for Huhne - I doubt he would do the same for you unless you are family, a friend, a colleague or, more certainly to engage his attention, an employer paying for his time. Even then you might find his support at a much lower level than you had hoped unless he is the main benefactor. It's the way the system works.
^^^^ top and accurate post.Would you trust these people to make laws for you and your family to follow knowing that had little or no intention of following them themselves? Perhaps you think they might make better Laws for being more pragmatic and being able to pick and choose which subjects close to their personal belief systems should be strictly obeyed and which should not?
Back in the old days when politicians, mostly, still had some respectable qualities, they used to resign and disappear for less problematic misdemeanors as soon as they became public knowledge (assuming they ever did). Now perjury and theft from the public purse seem to be accepted and rehabilitation by their peers, perhaps fearing their own fate at some future point, is encouraged.
It seems that the Politicians are now visibly as amoral as they claim about the bankers and the remnants of what people used to refer to as the Mainstream Media.
Huhne will no doubt find some way to follow Archer, Aitken and Ahmed along the path to career and fiscal redemption. The other 99.99% of the population, of which you and I are probably members, would simply be shafted by a political system that does not give a damn for any but its own.
Nice of you to speak up for Huhne - I doubt he would do the same for you unless you are family, a friend, a colleague or, more certainly to engage his attention, an employer paying for his time. Even then you might find his support at a much lower level than you had hoped unless he is the main benefactor. It's the way the system works.
Huhne could have been (and very nearly was) Leader of the Lib/Dems: ie: he would have been Deputy Prime Minister of this country.
A man who has the most monumental arrogance. Even Blair pales in comparison.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I beg to differ. Locking Huhne up was not idiotic, it was highly rational. If Huhne had simply admitted that he was speeding (and by inference a total hypocrite, coming from a party who seem to loathe people who choose to get from A to B by car, and further loathe them if they consume 'excessive fuel' in their 'powerful' cars or 'endanger the public' by 'speeding') then that would be one thing, but here is a man who votes on legislation and shapes the laws of the country.
The very least that the public expects is people who draft legislation to be held to the standards they demand others be held to.
The penalties for perjury are clear and the only disappointment is that he didn't stay in jail for longer.
singlecoil said:
You should have a read of this (link provided by Will a short while ago)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...
Either you or whoever wrote the sentencing guidelines are incorrect.
Sorry, but you've been on PH longer than me - do you really think soovy will tell us anything about legal stuff? I find him the most hilarious person. To be fair I have asked other PH lawyers and they cannot rule him out, and one of the most respected ones says I am too much of a cynic, but seriously, unless I see evidence otherwise I always assume soovy is speaking complete bhttp://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...
Either you or whoever wrote the sentencing guidelines are incorrect.
ks. That is not to say he's definitely not a barrister. He may be. But for whatever reason he likes to be indistinguishable from someone pretending to be making st up. There's no doubt a good reason...anonymous said:
[redacted]
The bloke held a position of authority. He lied to avoid the law. He got caught, I would have expected a sentence to be served longer. Does not matter what the latter offence was derived from I would have thought?He showed no integrity. I know many politicians are also the same but this cannot be avoided when it comes this far.
I would have had the sack from my employment.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
will_ said:
The criminal justice system represents the state's ability to remove someone's liberty. That is, by it's nature, extremely serious. As such seeking to alter the course of justice is perceived as being a serious offence, because the consequences are potentially very significant.
To add - "the consequences" include both the innocent being imprisoned wrongly and the guilty failing properly to be punished.will_ said:
And to reflect the cost of the resources wasted, and the lack of remorse.
If there were no benefit to pleading guilty, or no (or little) punishment for going to great lengths to avoid prosecution or punishment, it would obviously mean that more resources would be required for each case.
There is merit in incentivising guilty pleas and penalising those who seek to avoid the consequences of their actions, causing a very significant additional burden on resources and often the victims of crime.If there were no benefit to pleading guilty, or no (or little) punishment for going to great lengths to avoid prosecution or punishment, it would obviously mean that more resources would be required for each case.
Somewhatfoolish said:
singlecoil said:
You should have a read of this (link provided by Will a short while ago)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...
Either you or whoever wrote the sentencing guidelines are incorrect.
Sorry, but you've been on PH longer than me - do you really think soovy will tell us anything about legal stuff? I find him the most hilarious person. To be fair I have asked other PH lawyers and they cannot rule him out, and one of the most respected ones says I am too much of a cynic, but seriously, unless I see evidence otherwise I always assume soovy is speaking complete bhttp://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manu...
Either you or whoever wrote the sentencing guidelines are incorrect.
ks. That is not to say he's definitely not a barrister. He may be. But for whatever reason he likes to be indistinguishable from someone pretending to be making st up. There's no doubt a good reason...Sometimes he talks b0llocks for entertainment reasons. Sometimes he tries at least to contribute to serious debate.
Sometimes (gasp) the person behind Soov provides very genuine and professional legal advice offline, free of charge, to people who are in deep and seemingly unfathomable sh t, or whose families are in the sh t who could not otherwise afford it. As do (I suspect to a much greater extent given Soov's big swinging cock persona which puts people off) breadvan, AGT, and others who are engaged in the legal profession (which we all are).
I know for a fact that breadvan has done many many thousands of pounds of free work for PHers. I know that I've stopped a lady PHer being stalked by her idiot ex husband, and helped another whose disabled son was being refused treatment to obtain that treatment witha few carefully crafted letters. For what it's worth and somewhat ironically I've also managed to get some speeding charges dropped for a couple of people (not Huhne though, all he had to do was ask!) I've also drafted contracts for the business of a certain well loved PHer which have assisted him in getting paid money due to his business, which at the time he needed quite badly.
To quote Withnail, the person behind Soov is rather like Monty's cottage - "very expensive to those who can afford it, and free to those who can't".
A few people on here have met me in person though not for a long time, and I hope at least that they realise that Soov is a bit prone to hyperbole and to shouting his mouth off, but that the puppetmaster behind him is actually a fairly decent stand up bloke who is prepared to use 20 years of experience to help people with a shared interest in motors - anyone who spends any time on PH is usually a decent sort deserving of a break.
As for PTCoJ, the "puppetmaster" believes it to be a serious offence, which should be punished accordingly, especially when the person committing it has put themself into a position where they make the Law and expect YOU and ME to abide by it. There should be no quarter given to anyone who thinks that they are above the law, and sufficently important in their own opinion that they should not live by the same rules as everyone else. Because they're worth it.
I think I am retired, in all honesty. I see too much of myself in that last sentence - perhaps the unwritten rules of PH should apply to the real me, and I should post as the real person and not his alter ego with all his hot air and misplaced irreverence.
Edited by RSoovy4 on Wednesday 11th September 10:31
Sometimes, I'm genuinely staggered at what I read here. People post views that I can't believe they really hold, or argue vociferously like squabbling thirteen year-olds.
Very occasionally, I'm pleasantly surprised. In this case, it's because someone whose online persona I can't stand has dropped the mask and shown himself to be the much nicer bloke I rather hoped he was.
Of course, Soovy, this means I'll take your posts with an even bigger pinch of salt from now on.........
Very occasionally, I'm pleasantly surprised. In this case, it's because someone whose online persona I can't stand has dropped the mask and shown himself to be the much nicer bloke I rather hoped he was.
Of course, Soovy, this means I'll take your posts with an even bigger pinch of salt from now on.........
singlecoil said:
Only anecdotal evidence and opinion, but as most of the posts on PH are based on those two things, I think that's fair enough.
...in which case it's game over (in your view).Huhne cited a figure of 300,000 'points swaps', a number he may have purloigned from research by the AA, which I imagine is a lot less than the total number of speeding camera related fines or points.
So swapping points is not the norm. Unless you have some evidence to bring forward?
Edited to alter quotation marks accurately.
Edited by The Don of Croy on Wednesday 11th September 16:09
The Don of Croy said:
singlecoil said:
Huhne cited a figure of 300,000 'points swaps', a number he may have purloigned from research by the AA, which I imagine is a lot less than the total number of speeding camera related fines or points.
So swapping points is not the norm. Unless you have some evidence to bring forward?
jmorgan said:
Well, I did ask earlier and you did answer but I was not using the situation to bolster my point. If you are using it thus then I expect some details, not anecdotal. I genuinely do not know either way so was not postulating it was the reverse.
How many provable instances would you need in order to accept that the practice is widespread and commonplace?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff