Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.
Discussion
I have the great pleasure of living in her constituency and would certainly put my name to a recall in the event of a conviction. Despite my general disdain for the government I may even be tempted to vote Tory. Jackson seemed like a decent MP, if some clone from CCHQ was dropped in then I'd likely spoil my ballot.
Prior to becoming an MP she was a solicitor so she can’t even play the ignorance card.
And she did it twice...
“Prosecutors say Ms Onasanya conspired with her younger brother Festus to avoid penalty points, once when she was driving and once when he was behind the wheel, and passed them to a third party.
She is alleged to have been behind the wheel of a speeding vehicle on July 24 last year but together with her brother Festus Onasanya told the authorities someone else was driving.
The second similar count relates to an incident on August 23 when her brother was alleged to have been driving but she told authorities that a third party had been driving. ”
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5991597/amp/Labou...
And she did it twice...
“Prosecutors say Ms Onasanya conspired with her younger brother Festus to avoid penalty points, once when she was driving and once when he was behind the wheel, and passed them to a third party.
She is alleged to have been behind the wheel of a speeding vehicle on July 24 last year but together with her brother Festus Onasanya told the authorities someone else was driving.
The second similar count relates to an incident on August 23 when her brother was alleged to have been driving but she told authorities that a third party had been driving. ”
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5991597/amp/Labou...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I do wonder how far the investigation got before they realised she was an MP. From what I've gathered here over the years, when another driving is nominated and it's not a fleet/company they do take an interest, especially if the RK has points already or has nominated before (I assume their systems automatically flag this). Obviously they have access to the driving licence photos and can compare with video/photos of the offence - if it's a mobile van I recall they often track the vehicle as it passes to get a good shot of the driver. chow pan toon said:
I have the great pleasure of living in her constituency and would certainly put my name to a recall in the event of a conviction. Despite my general disdain for the government I may even be tempted to vote Tory. Jackson seemed like a decent MP, if some clone from CCHQ was dropped in then I'd likely spoil my ballot.
So do I . As for Jackson he was a good bloke, got things done. Our village got fibre broadband and an additional phone mast down to his direct lobbying of the relevant people. I was shocked when he lost out. Curiously enough though, the long overdue boundary changes are likely to make Peterborough predominately a Labour seat.
This is in court now
https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/governance-and-st...
Though with the ever growing number of "things to get wound up about", this hardly makes the list anymore.
https://www.lgcplus.com/politics/governance-and-st...
Though with the ever growing number of "things to get wound up about", this hardly makes the list anymore.
If I may be permitted the indelicacy of quoting the cheez-whizz in the white house; 'Lock her up!'
Grauniad; ZOMG lies!
Grauniad; ZOMG lies!
hidetheelephants said:
If I may be permitted the indelicacy of quoting the cheez-whizz in the white house; 'Lock her up!'
Grauniad; ZOMG lies!
Seems a lot of effort for a speeding fineGrauniad; ZOMG lies!
I am very surprised that this isn't getting more coverage on these pages! It ticks every box to misquote an earlier poster
On a more serious note, her TWO mobiles 'shook hands' with phone masts in the vicinity of the offence being committed by SOMEONE. Her car was there being filmed/photo'd or whatever. She stopped answering calls, messages and letters when it started spiralling out of control.
The only defence I can imagine her brief going with is along the lines of:
"Can you be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it was my client driving in the absence of proof? This is a fine upstanding, professional etc etc and to go with a 'she probably did it' verdict would be a gross miscarriage of the British legal system in this centenary year of the Great fight to keep Britain free from tyranny. My client is not a shopkeeper or Nurse who has made a mistake where a conviction wont have a marked impact on her chosen career - my client is innocent of the charges and to convict her on a balance of probabilities would ruin the career of a person who has committed her life to public service and that life choice for the help of others will be cast aside and ruined based on a whim or a 'best guess'.
May I suggest that you can only find my innocent client guilty if you are ABSOLUTELY, 100% CERTAIN that she was driving the car and KNOWINGLY misled the authorities...." etc etc.
I can almost hear it now.....
Bang the b1tch up if she HAS done it - I know where my gut feel is and it is a shame that she has not apparently taken the stand to answer cross examination. That should keep the reporters busy and dare I say it, happy! I am also happy to bet that her brief doesn't call her brother as a character witness nor as a defence witness
On a more serious note, her TWO mobiles 'shook hands' with phone masts in the vicinity of the offence being committed by SOMEONE. Her car was there being filmed/photo'd or whatever. She stopped answering calls, messages and letters when it started spiralling out of control.
The only defence I can imagine her brief going with is along the lines of:
"Can you be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that it was my client driving in the absence of proof? This is a fine upstanding, professional etc etc and to go with a 'she probably did it' verdict would be a gross miscarriage of the British legal system in this centenary year of the Great fight to keep Britain free from tyranny. My client is not a shopkeeper or Nurse who has made a mistake where a conviction wont have a marked impact on her chosen career - my client is innocent of the charges and to convict her on a balance of probabilities would ruin the career of a person who has committed her life to public service and that life choice for the help of others will be cast aside and ruined based on a whim or a 'best guess'.
May I suggest that you can only find my innocent client guilty if you are ABSOLUTELY, 100% CERTAIN that she was driving the car and KNOWINGLY misled the authorities...." etc etc.
I can almost hear it now.....
Bang the b1tch up if she HAS done it - I know where my gut feel is and it is a shame that she has not apparently taken the stand to answer cross examination. That should keep the reporters busy and dare I say it, happy! I am also happy to bet that her brief doesn't call her brother as a character witness nor as a defence witness
Wobbegong said:
hidetheelephants said:
If I may be permitted the indelicacy of quoting the cheez-whizz in the white house; 'Lock her up!'
Grauniad; ZOMG lies!
Seems a lot of effort for a speeding fineGrauniad; ZOMG lies!
PCOJ can take several forms but in effect, if the whole principle of 'allowing' PCOJ would render our Courts useless, then it could be seen as a pretty major thing - where one draws the line can be a heated discussion but a quick google found this right at the very top - https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Whilst I agree that on the face of it, this is almost a victimless crime and a minor one at that, I do understand the gravity of the whole crime and basic principle.
If lying under oath is not punished extremely severely, then everybody would have a go and roll the dice?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff