Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.
Discussion
AstonZagato said:
While I don't fully agree with Julian's point, I can see where he is coming from on this issue.
The concept of NIPs and being forced to incriminate oneself or someone else is an abomination in our legal system. Use of POCJ to enforce this flawed system and cow the general population into compliance is a brutal sledgehammer to crack an unimportant nut.
However, as an MP she should have been aware of the Chris Huhne case. If that weren't enough, as a lawyer, she was presumably well aware of the law and the consequences of her actions. Again, fair warning. No excuse. she nevertheless proceeded down that route. She deserved everything she got.
I fully agree with both your points.The concept of NIPs and being forced to incriminate oneself or someone else is an abomination in our legal system. Use of POCJ to enforce this flawed system and cow the general population into compliance is a brutal sledgehammer to crack an unimportant nut.
However, as an MP she should have been aware of the Chris Huhne case. If that weren't enough, as a lawyer, she was presumably well aware of the law and the consequences of her actions. Again, fair warning. No excuse. she nevertheless proceeded down that route. She deserved everything she got.
The law is the law though.
The perp was fully aware of the law as a lawyer and fully aware of previous similar case as an MP, but she chose to try and play the system and still does so to this day.
AstonZagato said:
If that weren't enough, as a lawyer, she was presumably well aware of the law and the consequences of her actions. Again, fair warning. No excuse. she nevertheless proceeded down that route. She deserved everything she got.
Not to mention she should have been aware of her duty as an Officer of the Supreme Court of Judicature of England Wales. Oh, and the Solicitors' Code of Conduct.julian64 said:
Vizsla said:
Q: Are there any restrictions on voting for people with learning disabilities or mental health problems?
A: No. Nearly everyone with a mental health problem or learning disability who is of voting age is entitled to vote in the UK General Election.
Explains a lot.
BTW Julian, is it a good idea to include your IQ in your username?
I am fairly happy with my IQ thank you.A: No. Nearly everyone with a mental health problem or learning disability who is of voting age is entitled to vote in the UK General Election.
Explains a lot.
BTW Julian, is it a good idea to include your IQ in your username?
Imagine you live in a country where disrespecting/respecting those in authority counts for significantly more than the crime you commit.
That puts as in the same league as some very nasty countries
Lying about 10mph speeding has now carried a penalty for this lady which is MANY times the severity of the original crime.
The punishment should never be significantly greater than the crime.
After all, if you remove the ability to lie from the legal system, what is the point in a trial?
Are you going to try each criminal twice? once to prove they were guilty and once to punish them from pleading innocent when they were actually found guilty?
I do think PCOJ has a place in the legal system, but not for rubbish such as this.
funkyrobot said:
kev1974 said:
lol! 386 people (at time of writing) appear to think she is innocent!
https://www.change.org/p/the-court-of-appeal-free-...
The comments on it make grim reading
https://www.change.org/p/the-court-of-appeal-free-...
lots of "black people don't get any justice" stuff.
W. T .F https://www.change.org/p/the-court-of-appeal-free-...
The comments on it make grim reading
https://www.change.org/p/the-court-of-appeal-free-...
lots of "black people don't get any justice" stuff.
That's how people like her get voted in. Some people are completely deluded.
I’m signing because this is an injustice. Fiona Onasanya should be freed and her conviction cleared from her record. This penalty was too harsh, a fine would have been more appropriate.
To realise that if people like this breed then we are totally f
ked.This person is saying that she should have been summarily fined without a trial (let alone a conviction) because she's done nowt wrong. FFS man!!!
Slaav said:
It has all gone quiet over here?
When is the ‘Leave to Appeal’ hearing? With a bit of luck, she will serve her full term before it all happens.
And did the AG or whoever refer the sentence officially to the Court of Appeal?
Any idea how the recall petition is progressing?
Etc etc - Byker, fancy taking an interest in this thread also? Would save us all a huge amount of time
I’m told that the AG has declined to refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal.When is the ‘Leave to Appeal’ hearing? With a bit of luck, she will serve her full term before it all happens.
And did the AG or whoever refer the sentence officially to the Court of Appeal?
Any idea how the recall petition is progressing?
Etc etc - Byker, fancy taking an interest in this thread also? Would save us all a huge amount of time
julian64 said:
Vizsla said:
Q: Are there any restrictions on voting for people with learning disabilities or mental health problems?
A: No. Nearly everyone with a mental health problem or learning disability who is of voting age is entitled to vote in the UK General Election.
Explains a lot.
BTW Julian, is it a good idea to include your IQ in your username?
I am fairly happy with my IQ thank you.A: No. Nearly everyone with a mental health problem or learning disability who is of voting age is entitled to vote in the UK General Election.
Explains a lot.
BTW Julian, is it a good idea to include your IQ in your username?
Imagine you live in a country where disrespecting/respecting those in authority counts for significantly more than the crime you commit.
That puts as in the same league as some very nasty countries
[b]Lying about 10mph speeding has now carried a penalty for this lady which is MANY times the severity of the original crime.
The punishment should never be significantly greater than the crime.[/b]
After all, if you remove the ability to lie from the legal system, what is the point in a trial?
Are you going to try each criminal twice? once to prove they were guilty and once to punish them from pleading innocent when they were actually found guilty?
I do think PCOJ has a place in the legal system, but not for rubbish such as this.
AstonZagato said:
While I don't fully agree with Julian's point, I can see where he is coming from on this issue.
The concept of NIPs and being forced to incriminate oneself or someone else is an abomination in our legal system. Use of POCJ to enforce this flawed system and cow the general population into compliance is a brutal sledgehammer to crack an unimportant nut.
However, as an MP she should have been aware of the Chris Huhne case. If that weren't enough, as a lawyer, she was presumably well aware of the law and the consequences of her actions. Again, fair warning. No excuse. she nevertheless proceeded down that route. She deserved everything she got.
That's a quite pathetic argument which, in reality, totally misses the point.The concept of NIPs and being forced to incriminate oneself or someone else is an abomination in our legal system. Use of POCJ to enforce this flawed system and cow the general population into compliance is a brutal sledgehammer to crack an unimportant nut.
However, as an MP she should have been aware of the Chris Huhne case. If that weren't enough, as a lawyer, she was presumably well aware of the law and the consequences of her actions. Again, fair warning. No excuse. she nevertheless proceeded down that route. She deserved everything she got.
If you have a genuinely held belief that filling in the form is a breach of your innate human rights then why not just say so and refuse to fill it out? You wouldn't get your bent brother to lie on her behalf and even incriminate someone else, a totally innocent party".
Any intelligent person would take that route anyway (even if they didn't believe it) because the offence is less serious than the one she took.
ashleyman said:
I guess I'm going to be THAT GUY but reading through the comments and looking at peoples names and their profile photos it's hard to ignore that most of those people are black. I do wonder if they have actually bothered to familiarise themselves with the case, history and rulings or if they've just seen another black person going to prison and have jumped on the SHES INNOCENT bandwagon just because they share her race.
Any educated person should be able to see that she is guilty and probably deserves a harsher penalty not an immediate release and full pardon.
It’s been that way for 20 years, have you not noticed the man keeping them down.Any educated person should be able to see that she is guilty and probably deserves a harsher penalty not an immediate release and full pardon.
Most people on here belive us police execute black who have their hands up saying don’t shoot.
You’ll be telling me next you don’t belive OJ was innocent.
AJL308 said:
AstonZagato said:
While I don't fully agree with Julian's point, I can see where he is coming from on this issue.
The concept of NIPs and being forced to incriminate oneself or someone else is an abomination in our legal system. Use of POCJ to enforce this flawed system and cow the general population into compliance is a brutal sledgehammer to crack an unimportant nut.
However, as an MP she should have been aware of the Chris Huhne case. If that weren't enough, as a lawyer, she was presumably well aware of the law and the consequences of her actions. Again, fair warning. No excuse. she nevertheless proceeded down that route. She deserved everything she got.
That's a quite pathetic argument which, in reality, totally misses the point.The concept of NIPs and being forced to incriminate oneself or someone else is an abomination in our legal system. Use of POCJ to enforce this flawed system and cow the general population into compliance is a brutal sledgehammer to crack an unimportant nut.
However, as an MP she should have been aware of the Chris Huhne case. If that weren't enough, as a lawyer, she was presumably well aware of the law and the consequences of her actions. Again, fair warning. No excuse. she nevertheless proceeded down that route. She deserved everything she got.
If you have a genuinely held belief that filling in the form is a breach of your innate human rights then why not just say so and refuse to fill it out? You wouldn't get your bent brother to lie on her behalf and even incriminate someone else, a totally innocent party".
Any intelligent person would take that route anyway (even if they didn't believe it) because the offence is less serious than the one she took.
There's been a lot of missing the point in this thread
This daft system doesnt work that way.
As I said earlier it would be much easier if they just awarded the FPN to the keeper of the car.
The keeper can then choose to try to recover the sum from whoever they thought was driving
hutchst said:
There is a difference between swapping points (in terms of awakening the interest of the fraud investigators), and trying to send them to Russia. Three times. Although just as illegal, I suspect that if Bro Fester had put his hand up and said "I was driving, gimme the points" she would probably have got away with it.
She didnt need to 'get away with it'.This daft system doesnt work that way.
As I said earlier it would be much easier if they just awarded the FPN to the keeper of the car.
The keeper can then choose to try to recover the sum from whoever they thought was driving
saaby93 said:
There's been a lot of missing the point in this thread
This daft system doesnt work that way.
As I said earlier it would be much easier if they just awarded the FPN to the keeper of the car.
The keeper can then choose to try to recover the sum from whoever they thought was driving
They do award the FPN to the registered keeper already. There's a space on the form to say it wasn't me driving.hutchst said:
There is a difference between swapping points (in terms of awakening the interest of the fraud investigators), and trying to send them to Russia. Three times. Although just as illegal, I suspect that if Bro Fester had put his hand up and said "I was driving, gimme the points" she would probably have got away with it.
She didnt need to 'get away with it'.This daft system doesnt work that way.
As I said earlier it would be much easier if they just awarded the FPN to the keeper of the car.
The keeper can then choose to try to recover the sum from whoever they thought was driving
eccles said:
They do award the FPN to the registered keeper already. There's a space on the form to say it wasn't me driving.
Yes I know It's that box that gives all the trouble.
The camera is usually facing the back of the car so that doesnt help
It becomes up to the RK to guess who was driving.
If they get it wrong it can end up in th PCoJ courts unless the system is happy that 'someone' is in the frame.
We'd all be better off just getting the RK to pay and giving the courts and newspapers a quiet life.
it may be more profitable too.
saaby93 said:
eccles said:
They do award the FPN to the registered keeper already. There's a space on the form to say it wasn't me driving.
Yes I know It's that box that gives all the trouble.
The camera is usually facing the back of the car so that doesnt help
It becomes up to the RK to guess who was driving.
If they get it wrong it can end up in th PCoJ courts unless the system is happy that 'someone' is in the frame.
We'd all be better off just getting the RK to pay and giving the courts and newspapers a quiet life.
it may be more profitable too.
First, we’ll ‘they’ don’t award the points to the RK. Why would they? The car doesn’t commit the offence the driver does. That’s how it is, why rail against it, with no good reason?
How the f
k can filling in a box give anyone trouble? Especially a trained lawyer and MP, as in this case. Has it really come to that; we are so illiterate that filling in a form is beyond many of us? I wonder how some manage to feed themselves, I really do. REALIST123 said:
FFS, you’re unreal.
First, we’ll ‘they’ don’t award the points to the RK. Why would they? The car doesn’t commit the offence the driver does. That’s how it is, why rail against it, with no good reason?
How the fk can filling in a box give anyone trouble? Especially a trained lawyer and MP, as in this case. Has it really come to that; we are so illiterate that filling in a form is beyond many of us? I wonder how some manage to feed themselves, I really do.
There have been PHers in the past that have got it wrong too - you dont have to be an MP or a solicitor First, we’ll ‘they’ don’t award the points to the RK. Why would they? The car doesn’t commit the offence the driver does. That’s how it is, why rail against it, with no good reason?
How the f
k can filling in a box give anyone trouble? Especially a trained lawyer and MP, as in this case. Has it really come to that; we are so illiterate that filling in a form is beyond many of us? I wonder how some manage to feed themselves, I really do. They could just drop the points thing - just like they've done with bus gate cashcows where they also dont know who was the driver
Slaav said:
agtlaw said:
There isn’t a ‘leave to appeal hearing.’ Leave is decided following a review of the case papers by a single Court of Appeal judge. Did Onasanya apply for leave to appeal against sentence? (as well as conviction)
The AG has 28 days to decide whether to refer an unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal.
Onasanya will very likely be suitable for Home Detention Curfew and released on day 28 of her sentence.
Recall petition can only start once the appeal process is exhausted.
Thanks agtlaw, will go and buy more popcorn.....The AG has 28 days to decide whether to refer an unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal.
Onasanya will very likely be suitable for Home Detention Curfew and released on day 28 of her sentence.
Recall petition can only start once the appeal process is exhausted.
It’s an application for permission (leave) to appeal - which is normally done on the papers. It’s unusual for the full court to determine leave unless the application is urgent (e.g. short custodial sentence imposed). Alternatively, the applicant is entitled to make a renewed application for leave to appeal if the single judge refuses leave to appeal.
agtlaw said:
Slaav said:
agtlaw said:
There isn’t a ‘leave to appeal hearing.’ Leave is decided following a re'
view of the case papers by a single Court of Appeal judge. Did Onasanya apply for leave to appeal against sentence? (as well as conviction)
The AG has 28 days to decide whether to refer an unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal.
Onasanya will very likely be suitable for Home Detention Curfew and released on day 28 of her sentence.
Recall petition can only start once the appeal process is exhausted.
Thanks agtlaw, will go and buy more popcorn.....view of the case papers by a single Court of Appeal judge. Did Onasanya apply for leave to appeal against sentence? (as well as conviction)
The AG has 28 days to decide whether to refer an unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal.
Onasanya will very likely be suitable for Home Detention Curfew and released on day 28 of her sentence.
Recall petition can only start once the appeal process is exhausted.
It’s an application for permission (leave) to appeal - which is normally done on the papers. It’s unusual for the full court to determine leave unless the application is urgent (e.g. short custodial sentence imposed). Alternatively, the applicant is entitled to make a renewed application for leave to appeal if the single judge refuses leave to appeal.
To be honest, from my own limited personal experience, it doesn’t surprise me it’s gone this way for justice to be seen to be done! Once again, I have limited knowledge but I guess it does make sense to not leave this down to one single judge behind closed doors? Even if it is a single judge, have a full hearing?
Then, if leave to appeal is granted, three LJs in full public appeal hearing??
What do you think agt?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff