Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.

[richie99]

hidetheelephants said:

PCOJ is as important as those; if people perceive they can appear in court and lie like cheap watches with impunity the edifice of justice falls to bits.

if that is really true why aren’t all the lying scum who are charged with something else and appear in court lying their faces off with their it wasn’t me guv, someone else made me do it, charged with conspiracy? Or is is just serious offences like speeding?

[Camoradi]

richie99 said:

if that is really true why aren’t all the lying scum who are charged with something else and appear in court lying their faces off with their it wasn’t me guv, someone else made me do it, charged with conspiracy? Or is is just serious offences like speeding?

Because if someone is being tried for a crime the course of justice has not been perverted in respect of that crime

[Zedboy]

Local news reports certainly suggest the prosecution have got themselves sorted evidence-wise ... the second half may be a struggle for poor Fiona?!

[saaby93]

Zedboy said:

Local news reports certainly suggest the prosecution have got themselves sorted evidence-wise ... the second half may be a struggle for poor Fiona?!

linky

[S11Steve]

saaby93 said:

Zedboy said:

Local news reports certainly suggest the prosecution have got themselves sorted evidence-wise ... the second half may be a struggle for poor Fiona?!

linky

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/peterborough-mp-fiona-onasanya-lied-persistently-and-deliberately-court-told-1-8737332

[saaby93]

S11Steve said:

saaby93 said:

Zedboy said:

Local news reports certainly suggest the prosecution have got themselves sorted evidence-wise ... the second half may be a struggle for poor Fiona?!

linky

-
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/pet...

As it says thats the prosecution version of what they think happened. They'd be wasting court time otherwise.
The defence last time has already said what happened , presumably that'll be presented again tomorrow
Unless there's something new there, the Jury will have to decide which is most likely

The annoying thing with trials is that because the prosecution gets first go - its reported as if its fact, when some of it is conjecture they werent there.
When the defence has it's go, many people will still be thinking the prosecution case is fact

[Slaav]

saaby93 said:

As it says thats the prosecution version of what they think happened. They'd be wasting court time otherwise.
The defence last time has already said what happened , presumably that'll be presented again tomorrow
Unless there's something new there, the Jury will have to decide which is most likely

The annoying thing with trials is that because the prosecution gets first go - its reported as if its fact, when some of it is conjecture they werent there.
When the defence has it's go, many people will still be thinking the prosecution case is fact

Do we really have to go here again?

The Prosecution are saying what they ‘think’ and claim has happened?

But the D are saying ‘what happened’? Did you miss out ‘claim’ or ‘allege’ again?

I think most people think she has lied through her teeth.... on the balance of probabilities (and reporting,) it would seem that the Prosecution are SAYING WHAT HAPPENED and it is the D that is CLAIMING a different unrealistic version of the facts....

Will we ever know the truth? Regardless of the verdict? (I think we all know the truth here ? )

[saaby93]

Slaav said:

saaby93 said:

As it says thats the prosecution version of what they think happened. They'd be wasting court time otherwise.
The defence last time has already said what happened , presumably that'll be presented again tomorrow
Unless there's something new there, the Jury will have to decide which is most likely

The annoying thing with trials is that because the prosecution gets first go - its reported as if its fact, when some of it is conjecture they werent there.
When the defence has it's go, many people will still be thinking the prosecution case is fact

Do we really have to go here again?

The Prosecution are saying what they ‘think’ and claim has happened?

But the D are saying ‘what happened’? Did you miss out ‘claim’ or ‘allege’ again?

I thought about putting 'think' in the defence but then thought no, the defence were there so they know what happened, and can put that forward. It could have claim.
The prosecution werent there so can only allege what happened

[Slaav]

saaby93 said:

I thought about putting 'think' in the defence but then thought no, the defence were there so they know what happened, and can put that forward. It could have claim.
The prosecution werent there so can only allege what happened

Saaby93, May I ask a quick question?

Do you think she is guilty? Based on the massively extensive reporting and quotes such as ‘I stand by my submissions’ etc?

Or is it a case that you think/hope she will be found NG? Which is clearly a very different question....

[hidetheelephants]

saaby93 said:

I thought about putting 'think' in the defence but then thought no, the defence were there so they know what happened, and can put that forward. It could have claim.
The prosecution werent there so can only allege what happened

A bit arse about face no? Isn't the defense argument explicitly that she was not present?

[saaby93]

hidetheelephants said:

saaby93 said:

I thought about putting 'think' in the defence but then thought no, the defence were there so they know what happened, and can put that forward. It could have claim.
The prosecution werent there so can only allege what happened

A bit arse about face no? Isn't the defense argument explicitly that she was not present?

No

[stevesingo]

saaby93 said:

Slaav said:

saaby93 said:

As it says thats the prosecution version of what they think happened. They'd be wasting court time otherwise.
The defence last time has already said what happened , presumably that'll be presented again tomorrow
Unless there's something new there, the Jury will have to decide which is most likely

The annoying thing with trials is that because the prosecution gets first go - its reported as if its fact, when some of it is conjecture they werent there.
When the defence has it's go, many people will still be thinking the prosecution case is fact

Do we really have to go here again?

The Prosecution are saying what they ‘think’ and claim has happened?

But the D are saying ‘what happened’? Did you miss out ‘claim’ or ‘allege’ again?

I thought about putting 'think' in the defence but then thought no, the defence were there so they know what happened, and can put that forward. It could have claim.
The prosecution werent there so can only allege what happened

Of course they know what happened. But if they believe that the sanction imposed for the crime might cause them some inconvenience (some points and embarrassment) , then they could always choose to lie. Then the cost of lying and getting caught is much greater. Then the level of judgement they have displayed is questionable.

[saaby93]

stevesingo said:

Of course they know what happened. But if they believe that the sanction imposed for the crime might cause them some inconvenience (some points and embarrassment) , then they could always choose to lie. Then the cost of lying and getting caught is much greater. Then the level of judgement they have displayed is questionable.

If youve been following, theyve already said the points wouldnt have been an embarrassment, the second half is the prosecutions case.
All I'm trying to do is make sure the defence case is given as much weight as the prosecution - otherwise you can end up with a PH miscarriage
The defence is plausible, the prosecution are obviously trying to say there's more to it, the Jury has to decide more than which is more likely but which actually happened.

[Slaav]

saaby93 said:

stevesingo said:

Of course they know what happened. But if they believe that the sanction imposed for the crime might cause them some inconvenience (some points and embarrassment) , then they could always choose to lie. Then the cost of lying and getting caught is much greater. Then the level of judgement they have displayed is questionable.

If youve been following, theyve already said the points wouldnt have been an embarrassment, the second half is the prosecutions case.
All I'm trying to do is make sure the defence case is given as much weight as the prosecution - otherwise you can end up with a PH miscarriage
The defence is plausible, the prosecution are obviously trying to say there's more to it, the Jury has to decide more than which is more likely but which actually happened.

Which Defence are you meaning Saaby?

A) it wasn’t me as I was in Parliament?
B) oops - ok I wasn’t but it wasn’t me.
C) someone used my car and I have no idea who, so I left the papers for the gremlins to complete?
D) ok, ok, it was the Rusky that we know and love enough to allow him to use my car as and when?
E) ok, it might have been me now all evidence ‘proves’ it was me but I was confused.
F) what? Ok, ok, it was me driving but I can’t remember and it is therefore a simple mistake and not PCoJ
E) I stand by my statements and wasn’t really evading my responsibilities to answer questions about the scam?
F) it was//wasn’t me that completed/signed the form! - delete as applicable depending on what day it is?
G) it was wee brother Festus and I had nothing to do with it! Please ignore E above as that doesn’t fit anymore with current Defence!
H) I’m ill, leave me alone....

Etc etc....

I could go on?

My City lunch has pushed back an hour but I imagine the Court will be rammed??

Saaby? May I ask my questions again? Do you think she did it/is guilty and secondly, do you think she will be found NG? Two separate questions clearly???

[RichB]

Slaav said:

Which Defence are you meaning Saaby?

A) it wasn’t me as I was in Parliament?
B) oops - ok I wasn’t but it wasn’t me.
C) someone used my car and I have no idea who, so I left the papers for the gremlins to complete?
D) ok, ok, it was the Rusky that we know and love enough to allow him to use my car as and when?
E) ok, it might have been me now all evidence ‘proves’ it was me but I was confused.
F) what? Ok, ok, it was me driving but I can’t remember and it is therefore a simple mistake and not PCoJ
E) I stand by my statements and wasn’t really evading my responsibilities to answer questions about the scam?
F) it was//wasn’t me that completed/signed the form! - delete as applicable depending on what day it is?
G) it was wee brother Festus and I had nothing to do with it! Please ignore E above as that doesn’t fit anymore with current Defence!
H) I’m ill, leave me alone....

brilliant

[douglasb]

I) I'm black, female and a friend of Jeremy Corbyn. Stop persecuting me! It's so unfair!

[AJL308]

ashleyman said:

Have you read whats on in the other courts?

Court 1 - Sexual Abuse (25 people)
Court 2 - Murder
Court 3 - Isis Sword Attack
Court 4 - Stabbing
Court 5 - Sexual Abuse (20 people)
Court 6 - Terrorism
Court 7 - Murder
Court 7 - Murder
Court 8 - Murder
Court 9 - Speeding & lying about it
Court 10 - Shaking a baby to death
Court 11 - Stabbing
Court 12 - Beating to death
Court 16 - Strangulation

1 of those is not like the others.

You could sensibly argue that the one in Court 9 is the most serious of the lot as if perverting the course of justice is not dealt with in a very stringent manner then it undermines the safety of the whole justice system. It bears directly on all the other cases on the list.

[Slaav]

AJL308 said:

You could sensibly argue that the one in Court 9 is the most serious of the lot as if perverting the course of justice is not dealt with in a very stringent manner then it undermines the safety of the whole justice system. It bears directly on all the other cases on the list.

My understanding is that a Defendant pleading NG and being found G is maybe technically PCoJ? By definition, if a D says something under oath and is not believed, then the implication is they are lying under Oath.

This, however, is never dealt with via PCoJ via 'convention' I believe. It seems the two are treated very differently vis a vis - a D lying vs Perverting/Derailing the process.

PCoJ is a fundamental issue as if it were 'ok' to lie and cheat, falsify evidence/alibis and encourage others to do so, with minimal sanction, then every little scrote would try it on?

There simply have to be pretty major sanctions to stop PCoJ! Or as others have said, the whole justice system is in danger of crumbling.....

[carinaman]

It's been adjourned for today.

A week ago Saturday, 1 Dec., I picked up an issue of The Sun. It mentioned someone called Khan who I think was from Ilford, or who was in Court in Ilford, and they were in Court for not coming clean about being caught speeding, I think it was multiple speeding offences.

The piece quoted the Judge as saying that such conduct struck to the very heart of our justice system or some such.

I had a quick search online but couldn't find it, but came across this case:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2564641/M...

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-ne...

[ashleyman]

All the other cases have actual victims. There was no victim of her speeding. I get that PCOJ is very serious but compared with the other cases her speeding is relatively petty.