Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.
Discussion
Sheepshanks said:
The trouble is she gives a wide range of people a reason to let her off.
She can only be 'let off' if she's done itAt least the Beeb have prefaced the prosecutions claim with 'alleged' this time
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
When do we start taking bets on how round 2 turns out?
carinaman said:
Frankly that would be ideal, one more disgraced hypocritical Labour MP and Farage in the house causing mayhem and much amusement! 
saaby93 said:
Sheepshanks said:
The trouble is she gives a wide range of people a reason to let her off.
She can only be 'let off' if she's done itAt least the Beeb have prefaced the prosecutions claim with 'alleged' this time
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
When do we start taking bets on how round 2 turns out?
Laughable.
julian64 said:
ash73 said:
ffs, people are idiots. Come on she's obviously guilty!
What are the odds at least three people on that jury have had speeding tickets?
Or believe that PCOJ for this is vindictive cobblers.What are the odds at least three people on that jury have had speeding tickets?
98elise said:
julian64 said:
ash73 said:
ffs, people are idiots. Come on she's obviously guilty!
What are the odds at least three people on that jury have had speeding tickets?
Or believe that PCOJ for this is vindictive cobblers.What are the odds at least three people on that jury have had speeding tickets?
However, it's history in England and Wales dates back to a case of religious persecution, and the jury were morally right to acquit when the law was clearly unjust.
In this case, however, somebody who is a member of the legal profession, and somebody elected to pass laws, apparently seems to think she is above the law. I fail to see how PCOJ can be considered vindictive cobblers.
saaby93 said:
REALIST123 said:
I don’t think there’s any doubt that she did it. She admits she did it. It’s just she’s trying to excuse what she did.
Laughable.
What has she admitted to Laughable.
Seeing the form.
Not completing the form.
Allowing the form to be completed by someone else, naming yet another person.
Lying about who was the driver.
Her excuse is that she made false assumptions and was ignorant of the law, both pretty lame excuses, especially for an MP Lawyer.
saaby93 said:
REALIST123 said:
I don’t think there’s any doubt that she did it. She admits she did it. It’s just she’s trying to excuse what she did.
Laughable.
What has she admitted to Laughable.
Seeing the form.
Not completing the form.
Allowing the form to be completed by someone else, naming yet another person.
Lying about who was the driver.
Her excuse is that she made false assumptions and was ignorant of the law, both pretty lame excuses, especially for an MP Lawyer.
saaby93 said:
essayer said:
Hung jury. Discharged. Retrial
-https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/fiona-onasan...
stanard said:
At the end of a two week trial, the jury today said they could not receive a unanimous or majority verdict in Onasanya's case after deliberating for two-and-a-half days.
Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC said the MP will now face a retrial "in due course", expected to be within the next two months.
What do we do now Slaav?Judge Nicholas Hilliard QC said the MP will now face a retrial "in due course", expected to be within the next two months.
As someone has already stated, the CPS must really be sure she is guilty to try her again? The judge clearly thinks she did it or he wouldn’t allow a retrial? Or he would have instructed the jury to acquit?
I may run off and stock up on mince pies and fizzy drinks and camp outside the Old Bailey to secure my place in the queue.....
It'll be a hung jury again next time I reckon.
As has already been posted. Jurors will make up their mind based on many factors.
Then they might listen to the arguments put forward by either side.
Personally, from what I've read so far I'd suggest a guilty verdict is fitting. But then I'm not a juror in the case nor in the courtroom (so happy to idly speculate).
As has already been posted. Jurors will make up their mind based on many factors.
Then they might listen to the arguments put forward by either side.
Personally, from what I've read so far I'd suggest a guilty verdict is fitting. But then I'm not a juror in the case nor in the courtroom (so happy to idly speculate).
saaby93 said:
hat has she admitted to
Unless I'm mistaken, it is what she has not admitted to which has put her in court.Seriously.the factual evidence we have in this case is:
1) Her car was speeding near Thorney.
2) She had a meeting with someone in the area that day and they confirm she was the sole occupant of her car when she arrived and left the meeting
3) Her mobile phones were in the area at the time of the offence.
4) She received the NIP but did not complete and return it as the law requires.
In return, she cannot provide an alibi to prove that she was not in the car or the vicinity at the time of the offence. She claims to not know where she was at the time, nor who was driving her car. Only her brother knew that.
I think I could account for my whereabouts and provide some evidence to back it up for any day this year, let alone the last 2 weeks. I'd wager you could too...
So why do you think she could not do so?
Camoradi said:
saaby93 said:
hat has she admitted to
Unless I'm mistaken, it is what she has not admitted to which has put her in court.Seriously.the factual evidence we have in this case is:
1) Her car was speeding near Thorney.
2) She had a meeting with someone in the area that day and they confirm she was the sole occupant of her car when she arrived and left the meeting
3) Her mobile phones were in the area at the time of the offence.
4) She received the NIP but did not complete and return it as the law requires.
In return, she cannot provide an alibi to prove that she was not in the car or the vicinity at the time of the offence. She claims to not know where she was at the time, nor who was driving her car. Only her brother knew that.
you forgot 1A) at the time she thought she was in Westminster that day
Remember she's not before the court for the speeding ticket
The question is whether shes tried to pervert the course of justice
So far although the prosecution have made allegations and provided evidence about the speeding, there doesnt seem to be much if anything that says she tried to pervert it eg did she ask her brother to lie on the form
The jury may know more
Camoradi said:
I think I could account for my whereabouts and provide some evidence to back it up for any day this year, let alone the last 2 weeks. I'd wager you could too...
No not convinced. I may have thought so once, but realise I'm not infallible and mistaken sometimes.No you dont often have evidence - see the prove your innocence thread
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 27th November 11:13
saaby93 said:
Camoradi said:
saaby93 said:
hat has she admitted to
Unless I'm mistaken, it is what she has not admitted to which has put her in court.Seriously.the factual evidence we have in this case is:
1) Her car was speeding near Thorney.
2) She had a meeting with someone in the area that day and they confirm she was the sole occupant of her car when she arrived and left the meeting
3) Her mobile phones were in the area at the time of the offence.
4) She received the NIP but did not complete and return it as the law requires.
In return, she cannot provide an alibi to prove that she was not in the car or the vicinity at the time of the offence. She claims to not know where she was at the time, nor who was driving her car. Only her brother knew that.
you forgot 1A) at the time she thought she was in Westminster that day
Remember she's not before the court for the speeding ticket
The question is whether shes tried to pervert the course of justice
So far although the prosecution have made allegations and provided evidence about the speeding, there doesnt seem to be much if anything that says she tried to pervert it eg did she ask her brother to lie on the form
The jury may know more
Camoradi said:
I think I could account for my whereabouts and provide some evidence to back it up for any day this year, let alone the last 2 weeks. I'd wager you could too...
No not convinced. I may have thought so once, but realise I'm not infallible and mistaken sometimes.No you dont often have evidence - see the prove your innocence thread
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 27th November 11:13
She is guilty as sin! Get her along to Marble Arch and hang her for the masses.... (joking!!)
I really cannot see how she is innocent and much like her defence brief Saaby, you attest she hasn’t admitted anything nor incriminated herself in any way. You seem reasonably certain of this.
I disagree; she evaded the authorities, she ignored calls, letters and numerous voicemails. She EVENTUALLY popped in for a Police interview in tandem with wee Festus. She ‘stood by HER submissions’. That seems to have been agreed to be factual as it seems it went unchallenged in Court - I’m not really surprised her brief didn’t challenge this point as she was under caution and everything was recorded and statemented?
One cannot argue that she has done nothing wrong, when she clearly has. On many levels.
I will pop off and find the full definition of PCoJ as I’m pretty sure that it is an offence to ‘allow’ knowingly false information or statements to be made in order to PCoJ? She has clearly and evidently done this. I struggle to understand how anybody can disagree??
saaby93 said:
reply above....
I accept your points... (see what I did there 
) but we are talking beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute proof of guilt which does not exist in many crimes. In this case, probably a private conversation between her and her brother would need to be proven and that isn't going to happen.but my final question above
"So why do you think she could not do so?"
I mean a busy MP, working hard for the people of her constituency, but she has this void in her busy schedule where no-one can come forward and say where she was, she can't for the life of her remember, coinciding with her car being clocked speeding...
That's really bad luck......
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff