Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.
Discussion
saaby93 said:
Du1point8 said:
Burwood said:
Sentencing is ‘at a later date’ but what’s interesting. Labours says if her sentence is no more than 12 months, she can retain her seat. I wonder if the judge will take that into account. She is expected to hold off resigning until sentencing.
Are you kidding?She gets a PTCOJ and is found guilty and Labour do nothing other than state its all fine that she is a known liar, she can still work for them... which f
k knuckle thought that would be good for the labour image?Do you have a source?
To avoid interference of one pillar of the state by another theyre separate entitie
Elected MPs can only be 'sacked' by their electorate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_of_MPs_Act_20...
So if she's otherwise doing a good job......
Yes, it’s the law enacted by our glorious MPs so that they now only get screwed if they do something really heinous.
Only been tested the once with Paisley, I believe, when he ‘forgot’ about expensive holidays he’d been given.
I seems to be blindingly obvious that people who are elected to, amongst other things, draft, approve and enact laws should be barred from ever carrying out that role if they are found guilty of deliberately breaking them. Moreso if, in addition, they are ‘qualified’ practitioners of the law.
It shouldn’t be down to political parties to decide that, nor fickle electorates. It should be a plain and simple fact.
The current situation is so Animal Farm it’s almost surreal.
otis criblecoblis said:
The brass neck of this woman is unbelievable .....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
She’s a CAAAAANT.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
Mothersruin said:
Gameface said:
"I will continue to fight against injustices".
Saying that knowing what she was doing is disgusting.
I really hope she gets more than a year.
Hugely amusing - I loved her quote in the Guardian article... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/20/l...Saying that knowing what she was doing is disgusting.
I really hope she gets more than a year.
criminal said:
In times like these, the natural inclination of believers is to ask God: why? I personally do not, because in my experience the answers are usually far above and beyond my reach. What I do know is that I am in good biblical company, along with Joseph, Moses, Daniel and his three Hebrew friends, who were each found guilty by the courts of their day.
While God did not save them from a guilty verdict, he did save them in it and ensured that their greatest days of impact were on the other side of a guilty verdict. Of course this is equally true of Christ, who was accused and convicted by the courts of his day and yet this was not his end but rather the beginning of the next chapter in his story.
Fair play - a pisstake of biblical proportions!While God did not save them from a guilty verdict, he did save them in it and ensured that their greatest days of impact were on the other side of a guilty verdict. Of course this is equally true of Christ, who was accused and convicted by the courts of his day and yet this was not his end but rather the beginning of the next chapter in his story.
Just who could vote for that?
saaby93 said:
S11Steve said:
saaby93 said:
First of all, if you're going to ask the question that way, she hasnt said she did, what we know is that the Jury found her guilty of PCoJ
Thats the way our system of Justice works.
As said in previous posts and in other threads about this piece of law it's pretty straight forward
The speed camera's snapped a car exceeding the speed limit
(or at least we think it has, ideally you'd have two photos and the road markings to confirm distance and time)
For the law to complete it has to receive a penalty charge from someone
If it doesn't the keeper of the car is in the frame for PCoJ
If the keeper gets it wrong and the wrong person pays the fine they (or both) are still liable for PCoJ
This dobbing in law would be unsupportable in other countries, where you cant incriminate yourself.
The best way out would be for the keeper to receive the fine.
If they wanted to claim it from whoever they think was driving thats up to them
You seem to have confused a lot of different traffic offences to come to this post.Thats the way our system of Justice works.
As said in previous posts and in other threads about this piece of law it's pretty straight forward
The speed camera's snapped a car exceeding the speed limit
(or at least we think it has, ideally you'd have two photos and the road markings to confirm distance and time)
For the law to complete it has to receive a penalty charge from someone
If it doesn't the keeper of the car is in the frame for PCoJ
If the keeper gets it wrong and the wrong person pays the fine they (or both) are still liable for PCoJ
This dobbing in law would be unsupportable in other countries, where you cant incriminate yourself.
The best way out would be for the keeper to receive the fine.
If they wanted to claim it from whoever they think was driving thats up to them
A penalty charge isn't issued for speeding offences, it is a S172 Notice under the Road Traffic Act that issued against the keeper in order to identify the driver. No penalty is issued at this stage.
Should the keeper fail to provide, or give false information, then an offence has been committed in relation to that S172 notice - and that S172 notice may or may not be related to a speeding event. Or a traffic light offence, or even a parking event in some instances.
As the registered keeper of thousands of vehicles at any given time, this is something I am quite keen on being compliant with.
There's many reasons why the keeper should not, or could not be held liable for an offence, whatever that may be, but I fear that you wouldn't be able to understand that if you don't already fully understand the above process.
Glad youre keen on compliance, it wont be a total safeguard from above as someone could make a mistake one day.
Let's just crack on and look forward to her being sentenced and her careers in both the law and politics, neither of which she has brought any credit to, being ended.
saaby93 said:
Gameface said:
How did she pervert the course of justice?
First of all, if you're going to ask the question that way, she hasnt said she did, what we know is that the Jury found her guilty of PCoJThats the way our system of Justice works.
As said in previous posts and in other threads about this piece of law it's pretty straight forward
The speed camera's snapped a car exceeding the speed limit
(or at least we think it has, ideally you'd have two photos and the road markings to confirm distance and time)
For the law to complete it has to receive a penalty charge from someone
If it doesn't the keeper of the car is in the frame for PCoJ
If the keeper gets it wrong and the wrong person pays the fine they (or both) are still liable for PCoJ
This dobbing in law would be unsupportable in other countries, where you cant incriminate yourself.
The best way out would be for the keeper to receive the fine.
If they wanted to claim it from whoever they think was driving thats up to them
For example, the RK isn’t ‘in the frame’ if a ‘penalty charge’ (?) isn’t received for the ‘law to complete’ at all.
saaby93 said:
La Liga said:
his is the sort of post that is produced when someone is trying to blag their way through something they don’t understand.
For example, the RK isn’t ‘in the frame’ if a ‘penalty charge’ (?) isn’t received for the ‘law to complete’ at all.
Yeah I said I was trying for brevity there For example, the RK isn’t ‘in the frame’ if a ‘penalty charge’ (?) isn’t received for the ‘law to complete’ at all.
You'd be better cutting your losses on this one.
saaby93 said:
GT119 said:
saaby93 said:
Previous poster said she didnt admit she was wrong -she did (about Westminister) it even made wikipedia
You have stated as fact that her original assumption that she was in Westminster on the day.It's just as likely she knew she wasn't, especially if she saw the camera flash behind her, and that's actually when the lying started.
If you made a mistake where you were one day would you say it was just as likely?
It's what she says and believed and she changed it when she found out parliament wasn't sitting that day
You can allege it's not true, but it's whats in print
Anyway, roll on her being jailed and perhaps this thread will disappear with her.
Short Grain said:
mgtony said:
^^ The longer the appeal drags out, the longer we are still paying her full wage. 
She should be kicked out of Parliament!! She keeps her salary of circa £77k/Annum while still an MP, plus whatever ex's she claims! She resigned or was kicked out of Labour but stays an MP, how / why the juddering f
k is she allowed to do that? She has no f
king shame!! Lying Cow!! 
Steady now!
She’s innocent until she admits she isn’t, according to Saaby.
saaby93 said:
poo at Paul's said:
saaby93 said:
I've been taking no view on whether she's right or wrong and the jury has had its say
But what happened in the first place was she assumed at the time of the offence that she was in Westminster so she took the form around to her mother's to see if who was driving the car......
Except of course Parliament went into recess earlier that very day!! But what happened in the first place was she assumed at the time of the offence that she was in Westminster so she took the form around to her mother's to see if who was driving the car......
As another poster said, it's not illegal to make a mistake when filling in the form and update it later.
Trouble here is that her bruv sent off the form, so she never managed to enter either onto it.
I think that means that what she said was a lie. Yes, definitely. Lots of people who heard all the evidence, plus a high court judge, decided she was a liar.
What sort of mind might still think she isn’t a liar and wasn’t lying? Very odd.
FazerBoy said:
I know that was said tongue in cheek, but just to put it out there for those who haven’t sat on a jury and think the jurors just flip a coin and come up with a verdict, I can relate my recent experience of jury service.
I have just finished almost three weeks of jury service in a Crown Court, during which time I sat on three cases.
Having had no idea what to expect, I was very impressed by the experience and I am confident that defendants in this country generally get a very fair trial.
In two of the cases I deliberated on as part of the jury, we found the defendants not guilty despite most of the jurors thinking that they had ‘probably done it’ simply because the standard of proof is very high and we couldn’t be certain of guilt on the evidence put before us.
We took a great deal of time to minutely examine all the evidence and every juror’s viewpoint was taken into account. The jurors were all fully engaged in the cases, took the fact that we had somebody’s future in our hands very seriously and wanted to arrive at the ‘correct’ decision.
The fact that one has a random selection of twelve jurors from all walks of life means that a defendant being found guilty through a biased view of one or two people is very unlikely to happen.
I am not saying that there are not occasional miscarriages of justice but I would think that far more guilty people walk free than innocent people are convicted of a crime.
That mirrors my experience as a juror. It’s quite enlightening having to make the decision - the weight of responsibility is certainly felt.I have just finished almost three weeks of jury service in a Crown Court, during which time I sat on three cases.
Having had no idea what to expect, I was very impressed by the experience and I am confident that defendants in this country generally get a very fair trial.
In two of the cases I deliberated on as part of the jury, we found the defendants not guilty despite most of the jurors thinking that they had ‘probably done it’ simply because the standard of proof is very high and we couldn’t be certain of guilt on the evidence put before us.
We took a great deal of time to minutely examine all the evidence and every juror’s viewpoint was taken into account. The jurors were all fully engaged in the cases, took the fact that we had somebody’s future in our hands very seriously and wanted to arrive at the ‘correct’ decision.
The fact that one has a random selection of twelve jurors from all walks of life means that a defendant being found guilty through a biased view of one or two people is very unlikely to happen.
I am not saying that there are not occasional miscarriages of justice but I would think that far more guilty people walk free than innocent people are convicted of a crime.
Slaav said:
La Liga said:
The jury were happy she committed the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
It's perfectly reasonable to call her a convicted liar / similar given the circumstances.
Not sure why anyone would argue otherwise.
It all seems rather simple doesn’t it!It's perfectly reasonable to call her a convicted liar / similar given the circumstances.
Not sure why anyone would argue otherwise.
What or why is Saaby doing trying to defend FO or justify her Behaviour?
Very bizarre ..... I’m glad others are all agreeing
Anybody else think she may be innocent and a victim of the illuminati? Or just Saaby?
It is all a bit strange.
Hopefully the book that the Judge co-authored indicates that he views motoring related matters as very serious, particularly when they then lead to PCOJ convictions
"He is the co-author, with Professor Robert Merkin, of The Law of Motor Insurance."
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0421839309
"He is the co-author, with Professor Robert Merkin, of The Law of Motor Insurance."
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0421839309
johnxjsc1985 said:
Anyone on PH praying for her and if so is it for a sentence more than 12 months.
I couldn’t possibly comment; I do like this song though 
https://youtu.be/goroyZbVdlo
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 29th January 10:55
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff