Chris Huhne... going soon?
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The first person to mention the guidelines was Derek Smith Feb 3 2012We were already discussing the issue of whether PtCoJ was a sledgehammer to crack a nut on Feb 5 2012, comments such as
LongQ "To use a Law that was always (historically and in so far as I have ever seen it reported) used previously as a big stick for major cases abusing due criminal legal process against the lesser and potentially widescale issue of NIPS and fixed penalties seems to me to demeand the concept of the Law as intended. Clearly it was menat to be an important law for when someone had severly upset the legal system and, more importantly, its judiciary."
and
Derek Smith "Any penalty must be reasonable or els the law falls into (further) disrepute."
10 Pence Short "In deciding how impotrtant it is to pursue PtcoJ, you have to ask yourself- if that person is prepared to lie about something trivial, like a speeding ticket, how would they be expected to tell the truth if it really was something serious? Better to nip people's thoughts of committing the offence in the bud.
When sentencing, the severity of the outcome from the offence can then be taken into account."
"When someone receives a s172 notice, they are being asked to furnish information with the aim of completing justice. At that point, someone receiving that notice has 3 choices: they can furnish the information and matters can proceed as they should; they can inform the authorities they do not know who is responsible and, like the first option, things will proceed as they should or, thirdly, they can purposely choose to defraud the process by lying or conspiring with others to lie.
Once someone has chosen the third option, they've made a conscious decision that they do not feel the law should apply to them. Not only does it subvert justice from happening in that case, it undermines the entire purpose of the system as a whole.
It is because of the seriousness of the consequences in allowing the system to be undermined, that the punishment must also show a seriousness. The onus on the sentence to act as a deterrent in this offence is very high, possibly higher than that for almost any other offence, because it relates directly to the ability of the entire system to operate.
Were the punishment for purposely misdirecting on a 172 a minor one, this would act as encouragement for people to 'try their luck', knowing the penalty if caught would not be too undesirable. We already see what happens when the the balance swings the wrong way- the financial and punitive penalty in driving without insurance has failed to keep pace with the perceived penalty in paying a premium. For a lot of people, it is worth taking the risk of driving without insurance knowing the punishment if caught will be less than if they remain within the law.
My opinion is with that of the Law, in that once someone chooses to purposely pervert the justice system, they lose the right to be punished at a level representing the seriousness of the original offence, assuming it was lower. It cannot and should not be right that you can 'try your luck' without penalty and, fortunately, it isn't."
I just can't be bothered to pick up any more quotes on stuff that was discussed long before your entry onto the thread.
Which was by the way some 10+ months later with this gem on Dec 17 2012
" I don't think the offence in this case was remotely "serious". I'm not in the least bit interested whether some view any PCoJ offence as serious. I'm simply of the opinion that the original offence was utterly piffling and I'm not in the least bit interested if anyone subsequently lied about it."
We got that and understood that viewpoint then.
Well it's an opinion to which you are entitled.
I've previously told you what to do, here it is in specific detail.
We look forward to receiving your response.
Email: consultation@sentencingcouncil.gsi.gov.uk
Office of the Sentencing Council
Room EB20
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
The Don of Croy said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ah, so Chris Huhne was jailed for driving home from the airport.Or was it driving in Essex?
Driving at night?
In laymans terms (whatever they may be - is there a wiki) it could be said to be any of those. But it's the lawmans terms that count.
singlecoil said:
The Don of Croy said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ah, so Chris Huhne was jailed for driving home from the airport.Or was it driving in Essex?
Driving at night?
In laymans terms (whatever they may be - is there a wiki) it could be said to be any of those. But it's the lawmans terms that count.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
On here? That's a figment of your imagination, it doesn't exist. anonymous said:
[redacted]
The person who repeatedly uses that phrase is you. A similar situation pertains with 'bring down' when applied to the justice system to imply collapse of some sort. This occurs because it gives you a false position to appear to argue against successfully, given that you know you're failing to argue successfully against the main point of the debate.anonymous said:
[redacted]
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You are mistaken and sure, it's fine, not serious like PtCoJ.It's not likely ever to be of any use to you to rehearse arguments other people haven't made.
singlecoil said:
AnonSpoilSport said:
How long does it take 3 PHers to change a light bulb?
One hundred and thirty two pages and counting... as they argue non-stop over which way to screw (each other).
I can understand your not enjoying this debate.One hundred and thirty two pages and counting... as they argue non-stop over which way to screw (each other).
Be a good boy, play nicely and I won't log it on the 'Spelling' thread.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You are either being disingenuous or stupid.It is a very real result of 'sharing' points that people who should not be on the road, still are. Why would people share points in the first place, if the aim was not to avoid a totting up ban?
Secondly, speeders who take their points don't need the same harsh punishment as those who pervert the course of justice, because they fulfil the proper aims and outcomes of the regulatory system controlling road users.
The only people who find the concept of PCoJ difficult to understand are those who are stupid.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'll engage in debate all day long, but I won't waste time doing it with people who purposely pretend to be stupid in order to prolong some kind of internet 'win'.Are you suggesting;
1) Speeding laws are obviously wrong because so many people break them;
2) PCoJ laws are obviously wrong because 'so many' people break them (despite you having no way of knowing how common this really is to support your point of view)?
To be frank, if your position is 'yes' on either you're too far into the stupid camp to waste time on.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
singlecoil said:
You've had your head nailed to the coffee table
singlecoil said:
Come on, summarise your arguments or STFU.
Already done. Look back and find the post for yourself, given that you replied to it on Monday (ineffectively, as usual) you know it exists. Your request is clearly disingenuous and you would be the better choice to STFU as you are repeatedly asking for repeats of posts you've repeatedly failed to understand.
Troll.
There was also a response you might recall, which I posted in response to cmoose, when they commented as follows:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
My response was this:In reply I said:
So, where PtCoJ and perjury would result in an innocent person being jailed, you appear to agree this is an "extremely serious" situation, and not just because it's the view of 'the Courts'.
If anyone wants to see what real wriggling on a stick looks like, they can go back and see what followed. Based on evidence, you're both ineffective at discussing facets of the justice system relevant to this thread, and no better as trolls.
turbobloke on Monday said:
That's a serious matter which is why he and his ex were jailed. In addition to indicating that Huhne is a particularly and criminally devious individual, the fake self-righteousness and hypocrisy also point to him being an odious little turd of a man. Defending him in any way must take some efort, congratulations to you.
Well, there it is. He was jailed because IT'S A SERIOUS MATTER
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff