Chris Huhne... going soon?

[singlecoil]

Zod said:

No improvement in comprehension there. You are trying by making an unjustified assertion (that you know to be absurd, but are using for purposes of hyperbole) to say those of us on the other side of the argument (if it can be described as such) have not justified our position, when clearly we have and several times.

Have you? I don't think so. What I've seen repeated ad nauseum is that 'it's serious because it's serious', or 'it's serious because it undermines the justice system', (but with no quantification of that undermining). One could just as easily say that speeding itself undermines the transport system. It's not enough to say it, you need to quantify it.

[Zod]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

More than one person, including me, has explained this.

[Zod]

This has been going on for months. If there was ever a chance of the penny dropping for cmoose and singlecoil, it would have happened by now. I therefore am stepping away.

[singlecoil]

Zod said:

This has been going on for months. If there was ever a chance of the penny dropping for cmoose and singlecoil, it would have happened by now. I therefore am stepping away.

I think if there is anyone here who hasn't quite seen the light, it's you and your legal friend. At least the others on your 'side' are making a decent attempt to justify their position, but you, as usual, are relying on repetition, assertion and, to be frank, rudeness. It's evident that you don't understand the concept of argument based on logic.

[Leithen]

cmoose, the courts are concerned about certain actions taken after an offence has been committed and is being investigated. It appears that you believe that such a distinction between original offence and subsequent actions ought to be indivisible.

PCoJ exists because such actions are regarded as separate and serious. If you were unsuccessfully framed for a relatively minor offence by the real offender, would you be happy that they only received the tariff that went with the original crime?

[FiF]

Given the potentially serious life consequences of acquiring a criminal record for something as minor as an unintentional mistake on a public transport fare by as little as £1 and given the extortionate price of Mars bars these days...

[Zod]

singlecoil said:

Zod said:

This has been going on for months. If there was ever a chance of the penny dropping for cmoose and singlecoil, it would have happened by now. I therefore am stepping away.

I think if there is anyone here who hasn't quite seen the light, it's you and your legal friend. At least the others on your 'side' are making a decent attempt to justify their position, but you, as usual, are relying on repetition, assertion and, to be frank, rudeness. It's evident that you don't understand the concept of argument based on logic.

[Zod]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You wouldn't want those sandwiches.

[singlecoil]

Zod said:

singlecoil said:

Zod said:

This has been going on for months. If there was ever a chance of the penny dropping for cmoose and singlecoil, it would have happened by now. I therefore am stepping away.

I think if there is anyone here who hasn't quite seen the light, it's you and your legal friend. At least the others on your 'side' are making a decent attempt to justify their position, but you, as usual, are relying on repetition, assertion and, to be frank, rudeness. It's evident that you don't understand the concept of argument based on logic.

And Zod's standby, of course, ridicule, I left that out of my earlier list.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not much point in making an Appeal to Authority, if the authority in question has been shown to be unwilling (unable?) to support his position with logic.

[turbobloke]

singlecoil said:

Not much point in making an Appeal to Authority, if the authority in question has been shown to be unwilling (unable?) to support his position with logic.

Yet there's a point in responding to reasoning by assertion like that? Only to point it out.

Nothing illogical to see, captain.

[singlecoil]

turbobloke said:

singlecoil said:

Not much point in making an Appeal to Authority, if the authority in question has been shown to be unwilling (unable?) to support his position with logic.

Yet there's a point in responding to reasoning by assertion like that? Only to point it out.

Nothing illogical to see, captain.

Except in your post, I'm afraid. There's such a thing as being too obscure.

[Murph7355]

singlecoil said:

Not much point in making an Appeal to Authority, if the authority in question has been shown to be unwilling (unable?) to support his position with logic.

Sometimes no matter how hard you try, nor how few syllables you use, you cannot make some people understand...

[Slaav]

I am going to try really hard not to keep reading this nonsense thread....

Why is it simply not acceptable to disagree? People do not HAVE to be right! I happen to think there are a couple on this topic that would argue with each other if the majority stopped posting. And they are on the same side of the argument! (The wrong side )

Anyway - will really try not to come back now.....



ps - I havent added much for months anyway - if ever

[Murph7355]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Apart from, perhaps, the more people who are "seen" PtCoJ, the more people will think "righty ho, I'll do it then", a notion perhaps supported by your own assertion that 100,000s people swap points.

Punishing such a public case of PtCoJ hard might see that trend change and hence lessen the undermining of the law. And if enough cases were punished hard enough, perhaps it could be all but eradicated?

No?

Who knows.

Meanwhile, out of interest, what *is* your argument to assert that PtCoJ is trivial for certain crimes? Is it that "it just is"? I don't recall seeing it...

[Leithen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ok, step by step.

First separate the original offence, however minor from the subsequent offence of PCoJ. I know you really don't want to do this, but bear with me.

Then have a quick read of the CPS Guidleines re PCoJ.

As you will have now read, there are a number of aggravating and mitigating factors that factor against any possible tariff.

If you have an iota of imagination, you can easily understand that however minor the original offence, threatening witnesses or causing the arrest of an innocent person are nasty and ought to be dealt with accordingly.

If a justice system doesn't do everything it can to deter such behaviour we are all in a real pickle, because sooner or later you will be the one threatened or framed.

If that's not enough for you cmoose, then by all means continue to disagree, but many of us will simply hope for your own sake that PCoJ continues to be treated as seriously as it is regardless of how minor the original offence is.

[FiF]

Attempting to put some perspective on this.

Offenders found guilty and sentence breakdown at all courts for attempting to pervert the course of justice England and Wales, 2008 to 2012

Outcome	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Found guilty	1,191	1,149	1,181	1,037	904
Sentenced	1,191	1,149	1,183	1,039	904
Immediate custody	476	470	453	475	424
Suspended sentence	449	437	446	406	352
Community sentence	222	202	228	133	110
Fine	15	13	18	6	2
Absolute discharge	1	-	-	1	1
Conditional discharge	24	21	28	10	9
Otherwise dealt with	4	6	10	8	6

From Hansard. Data Source MoJ Detailed notes in the link

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2013-06-19...

Seems like a sliding scale to me.

[FiF]

We already know from just in this thread of various speeding related cases which fit several of those categories, including some non custodial.

Personally I'm happy with the way the sentencing guidelines work in practice for the offence of PtCoJ which is of course just one single offence within the overall sentencing guidelines. I suspect many others on the thread would agree with me.

Clearly you and one, maybe two, other(s) are not. Fair enough your opinion.

Why don't you make a FoI request asking the MoJ for the data, and dependant upon what that analysis shows the possibly ask for the consideration of the creation of a new offence, namely 'PtCoJ in relation to camera enforcement of speeding'? I know what your answer will be on that but hey ho.

That's the only way forward on this matter.

[FiF]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Which is?

[singlecoil]

The other side of the argument, the one in favour of prison sentences for points-swapping, would be more convincing if it didn't come mainly from those who make no secret of their loathing for Huhne. It comes across that the reason they feel PtCoJ is so serious in relation to points-swapping because someone they hate/despise was caught doing it.

If they were to produce an alternative argument to support their position I would be interested to read it, but so far all we have had is "It's serious because it undermines the Justice system" and "it's serious because it's serious".

Undermining the Justice system would indeed be serious if it was serious, but the best information we have is that points-swapping has happened a lot, and yet there are no observable effects on the system.

[turbobloke]

singlecoil said:

The other side of the argument, the one in favour of prison sentences for points-swapping, would be more convincing if it didn't come mainly from those who make no secret of their loathing for Huhne.

Desperate and ineffective.

I would apply the same principles to the Pope or Mary Poppins.