Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.

Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.

Author
Discussion

poo at Paul's

14,116 posts

174 months

Wednesday 25th July 2018
quotequote all
She has a full deck of cards to play, so she wont be getting a custodial.

Oilchange

8,421 posts

259 months

Wednesday 25th July 2018
quotequote all
That would be an awful shame. It would be great to see the look on her face as she's sent down.

agtlaw

6,680 posts

205 months

Wednesday 25th July 2018
quotequote all
Presumption of innocence applies.

chow pan toon

12,356 posts

236 months

Wednesday 25th July 2018
quotequote all
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.

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Wednesday 25th July 2018
quotequote all
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...

CoolHands

18,496 posts

194 months

Wednesday 25th July 2018
quotequote all
My roll of the dice says she will play the ‘my volunteer assistant cocked up the paperwork’ card.

rxtx

6,016 posts

209 months

Thursday 26th July 2018
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Blast from the past. One of my old mates was at Nockolds 14 years ago, seems he's heading that department now smile

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Monday 30th July 2018
quotequote all

Gareth79

7,628 posts

245 months

Monday 30th July 2018
quotequote all
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.



Hosenbugler

1,854 posts

101 months

Monday 30th July 2018
quotequote all
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.

Ian Geary

4,462 posts

191 months

Tuesday 13th November 2018
quotequote all
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.

FazerBoy

953 posts

149 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
Her brother has already pleaded guilty to three counts of perverting the course of justice.

I'm not sure whether the jury in her case will get to know of that fact prior to being asked to come to a decision but if they are informed then I know which verdict my money's on!

hidetheelephants

23,761 posts

192 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
If I may be permitted the indelicacy of quoting the cheez-whizz in the white house; 'Lock her up!'

Grauniad; ZOMG lies!

chow pan toon

12,356 posts

236 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
It doesn't look good for her, and she's obviously double stupid as I assume she won't be able to do her "proper" job if she's convicted?

Wobbegong

15,077 posts

168 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
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 fine

Slaav

4,240 posts

209 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
I am very surprised that this isn't getting more coverage on these pages! It ticks every box to misquote an earlier poster smile

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 wink

hutchst

3,696 posts

95 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
It's not about whether she was driving the car, it's about the certainty that Oleg from Moscow wasn't. It doesn't matter who was.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
Innocent until guilty, robustly refuting, strongly defending - thank goodness the simple sword of truth was unavailable for hire.

CoolHands

18,496 posts

194 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
what if she says she was a passenger in her own car, using her phones, and that (the Russian) is lying? it would explain everything.

Slaav

4,240 posts

209 months

Wednesday 14th November 2018
quotequote all
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 fine
This specific point has been done to death elsewhere - take a look at the Chris and Vicky thread (Huhne) as well as many others.

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&...smile

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?