Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.
Discussion
There I was getting myself all upset by the contents of that Mail article when I noticed the article itself is nearly five years old and many of the events it reports are years older.
What a crock of s
t that sorry tale was. And quite how much effort and expense was spent on the case?
Wonder what became of our young trainee heroine?
What a crock of s
t that sorry tale was. And quite how much effort and expense was spent on the case? Wonder what became of our young trainee heroine?
ashleyman said:
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.
Indeed the speeding was very petty. PCOJ is not. PCOJ while in the public purse and at such an elevated position moreso. Is your issue simply that the case is being heard at such a high court?scenario8 said:
There I was getting myself all upset by the contents of that Mail article when I noticed the article itself is nearly five years old and many of the events it reports are years older.
What a crock of st that sorry tale was. And quite how much effort and expense was spent on the case?
Wonder what became of our young trainee heroine?
Sorry about posting that, but it was another case involving speeding and a solicitor digging themselves into a hole and not doing their profession any favours. What a crock of s
t that sorry tale was. And quite how much effort and expense was spent on the case? Wonder what became of our young trainee heroine?
ashleyman said:
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.
You are missing the point entirely. It is not a trial about speeding! Of course there will be victims if PtCOJ (and especially conspiracy) is considered a minor crime and isn't dealt with properly then everyone is a victim. The person who owns up to a speeding offence is a victim if some are fiddling the system.
The principle is simple; if she can get away with perverting the course of justice in relation to a "petty" offence then how can we complain if the defendants in the murder trials or the trail involving shaking a baby to death do too? It applies both ways, of course. What about if the police and CPS conspire to pervert the course of justice in order to get convictions in those other cases? Everyone loses.
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....
Etc etc....
I could go on?
Couldn't she simply say she 'mis-remembered' , that seems to be a suitable get out of jail card.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?
scenario8 said:
ashleyman said:
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.
Indeed the speeding was very petty. PCOJ is not. PCOJ while in the public purse and at such an elevated position moreso. Is your issue simply that the case is being heard at such a high court?I'm just saying her case is very different to the others being tried in that particular court because the others have actual victims - wether that be the people who were killed, abused or their families. Her case does not technically have a victim unless you consider the law/government to be the victim.
Her speeding was petty and I understand the case is not about the speeding I was just highlighting the point that her trial for PCOJ shows just how serious things can get for even petty, victimless offences like speeding.
It just blows my mind a little that something like speeding can snowball into you being tried in one of the highest courts of the land alongside terrorists, murderers and rapists! There is a little bit inside me that thinks, whats the point? She was speeding, nobody got hurt, get on with it.
ashleyman said:
I don't have an issue with it at all.
I'm just saying her case is very different to the others being tried in that particular court because the others have actual victims - wether that be the people who were killed, abused or their families. Her case does not technically have a victim unless you consider the law/government to be the victim.
Her speeding was petty and I understand the case is not about the speeding I was just highlighting the point that her trial for PCOJ shows just how serious things can get for even petty, victimless offences like speeding.
It just blows my mind a little that something like speeding can snowball into you being tried in one of the highest courts of the land alongside terrorists, murderers and rapists! There is a little bit inside me that thinks, whats the point? She was speeding, nobody got hurt, get on with it.
Initially she was only speeding but that's not the offence for which she's ended-up in court and on trial; I guess the argument will be if she'd just gone on a SAC - or taken the points and a fine if she wasn't eligible for one of those - she could have just got on with it! I'm just saying her case is very different to the others being tried in that particular court because the others have actual victims - wether that be the people who were killed, abused or their families. Her case does not technically have a victim unless you consider the law/government to be the victim.
Her speeding was petty and I understand the case is not about the speeding I was just highlighting the point that her trial for PCOJ shows just how serious things can get for even petty, victimless offences like speeding.
It just blows my mind a little that something like speeding can snowball into you being tried in one of the highest courts of the land alongside terrorists, murderers and rapists! There is a little bit inside me that thinks, whats the point? She was speeding, nobody got hurt, get on with it.
It is however "interesting" that resources can invariably be found to follow-up anything speeding related - and as in this case turn it into a much more serious charge - whereas it seems much more problematic for many other offences (even though those offences often do have a victim); funny old world sometimes......
JNW1 said:
ashleyman said:
I don't have an issue with it at all.
I'm just saying her case is very different to the others being tried in that particular court because the others have actual victims - wether that be the people who were killed, abused or their families. Her case does not technically have a victim unless you consider the law/government to be the victim.
Her speeding was petty and I understand the case is not about the speeding I was just highlighting the point that her trial for PCOJ shows just how serious things can get for even petty, victimless offences like speeding.
It just blows my mind a little that something like speeding can snowball into you being tried in one of the highest courts of the land alongside terrorists, murderers and rapists! There is a little bit inside me that thinks, whats the point? She was speeding, nobody got hurt, get on with it.
Initially she was only speeding but that's not the offence for which she's ended-up in court and on trial; I guess the argument will be if she'd just gone on a SAC - or taken the points and a fine if she wasn't eligible for one of those - she could have just got on with it! I'm just saying her case is very different to the others being tried in that particular court because the others have actual victims - wether that be the people who were killed, abused or their families. Her case does not technically have a victim unless you consider the law/government to be the victim.
Her speeding was petty and I understand the case is not about the speeding I was just highlighting the point that her trial for PCOJ shows just how serious things can get for even petty, victimless offences like speeding.
It just blows my mind a little that something like speeding can snowball into you being tried in one of the highest courts of the land alongside terrorists, murderers and rapists! There is a little bit inside me that thinks, whats the point? She was speeding, nobody got hurt, get on with it.
It is however "interesting" that resources can invariably be found to follow-up anything speeding related - and as in this case turn it into a much more serious charge - whereas it seems much more problematic for many other offences (even though those offences often do have a victim); funny old world sometimes......
It does seem a lot of effort for a minor offence, but once the initial NIP had been sent, a chain of events is set in motion. The investigation into the speeding offence took place over a number of weeks or months, and involved a number of people trying to gain information from her and then meeting a dead end when for example, it turned out the Russian guy was out of the country at the time he was said to have committed the speeding offence. No-one decided to throw all these resources at it, but each step of the investigation leads to the next. As it goes on it is harder to drop the case.
Add in the fact it is an MP involved and the police have little choice but to pursue it. What if they said "We're too busy, let's let this one go, it was only 41 in a 30 and no-one was hurt", and then the story got out? Or alternatively having a situation where people have leverage on an elected official due to knowledge of the offence and the fact she was let off.
The police had no choice but to carry it through in my opinion.
Add in the fact it is an MP involved and the police have little choice but to pursue it. What if they said "We're too busy, let's let this one go, it was only 41 in a 30 and no-one was hurt", and then the story got out? Or alternatively having a situation where people have leverage on an elected official due to knowledge of the offence and the fact she was let off.
The police had no choice but to carry it through in my opinion.
Camoradi said:
The police had no choice but to carry it through in my opinion.
Agreed.The question is should they have then stopped when it was confirmed the brother was the one who'd done the PCoJ, or pushed it to court just in case the MP has too. If it was ordinary Joe that may have been enough but because MP, better run it to court.
We'll see which way it goes
saaby93 said:
Camoradi said:
The police had no choice but to carry it through in my opinion.
Agreed.The question is should they have then stopped when it was confirmed the brother was the one who'd done the PCoJ, or pushed it to court just in case the MP has too. If it was ordinary Joe that may have been enough but because MP, better run it to court.
We'll see which way it goes
saaby93 said:
Camoradi said:
The police had no choice but to carry it through in my opinion.
Agreed.The question is should they have then stopped when it was confirmed the brother was the one who'd done the PCoJ, or pushed it to court just in case the MP has too. If it was ordinary Joe that may have been enough but because MP, better run it to court.
We'll see which way it goes
"The question is should they have then stopped when it was confirmed the brother was the one who'd done the PCoJ"
Has this been accepted and proven that he is the one that did it guv' and she knew nothing about it at all? Who signed the NIP as the RK? Why did she avoid the investigators? Did she know about it? Did she collude? (see Trump threads for definition
)More importantly, did she commit the crime despite Wee Festus taking one for the team? And then why did she 'stand by her submissions' when at that stage, if it is Wee Festus that did it, she was knowingly committing Perjury/PCoJ?
And do you think she 'did it' or do you think she is genuinely completely innocent in this matter? (I wont ask the other part of my question....)
This is often the case. A minor misdemeanour is commited and by trying to hide it, a greater crime is commited.
Who’d have thought a cigar and an intern could lead to the President nearly being kicked out of office ? “It’s the lying wot did it”
People in high office have to be seen to be whiter than white. If they lie to the court then what kind of an example does that set for normal people ?
Who’d have thought a cigar and an intern could lead to the President nearly being kicked out of office ? “It’s the lying wot did it”
People in high office have to be seen to be whiter than white. If they lie to the court then what kind of an example does that set for normal people ?
BrabusMog said:
saaby93 said:
Camoradi said:
The police had no choice but to carry it through in my opinion.
Agreed.The question is should they have then stopped when it was confirmed the brother was the one who'd done the PCoJ, or pushed it to court just in case the MP has too. If it was ordinary Joe that may have been enough but because MP, better run it to court.
We'll see which way it goes
However if its passed to a family member who fills it in and sends it off as it was them, theyre not going to be taken to court for misfilling in the form as justice will end up correctly dealt with
Whats gone wrong here is the brother has filled in the name of yet another person, to try to bring the process to an end
It's agreed that's PCoJ.
The question before the court is, did the MP tell her brother to do that
She says no
Prosecution says yes
Jury yet to determine
Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 13th December 15:20
Exige77 said:
People in high office have to be seen to be whiter than white. If they lie to the court then what kind of an example does that set for normal people ?
I understand what you're saying but personally I think the law should apply equally to all; no preferential treatment for people in high office but equally they shouldn't be punished more severely just because they're in high office either. Of course depending on the offence committed their conduct might make them no longer fit to hold high office but that's a different matter....
I'm reliably informed that this is not the only skeleton in Ms Onasanya's cupboard. Everybody who I've spoken too locally thats followed the happenings are all 100% convinced of he guilt. saaby93 said:
BrabusMog said:
saaby93 said:
Camoradi said:
The police had no choice but to carry it through in my opinion.
Agreed.The question is should they have then stopped when it was confirmed the brother was the one who'd done the PCoJ, or pushed it to court just in case the MP has too. If it was ordinary Joe that may have been enough but because MP, better run it to court.
We'll see which way it goes
However if its passed to a family member who fills it in and sends it off as it was them, theyre not going to be taken to court for misfilling in the form as justice will end up correctly dealt with
Whats gone wrong here is the brother has filled in the name of yet another person, to try to bring the process to an end
It's agreed that's PCoJ.
The question before the court is, did the MP tell her brother to do that
She says no
Prosecution says yes
Jury yet to determine
Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 13th December 15:20
ashleyman said:
JNW1 said:
ashleyman said:
I don't have an issue with it at all.
I'm just saying her case is very different to the others being tried in that particular court because the others have actual victims - wether that be the people who were killed, abused or their families. Her case does not technically have a victim unless you consider the law/government to be the victim.
Her speeding was petty and I understand the case is not about the speeding I was just highlighting the point that her trial for PCOJ shows just how serious things can get for even petty, victimless offences like speeding.
It just blows my mind a little that something like speeding can snowball into you being tried in one of the highest courts of the land alongside terrorists, murderers and rapists! There is a little bit inside me that thinks, whats the point? She was speeding, nobody got hurt, get on with it.
Initially she was only speeding but that's not the offence for which she's ended-up in court and on trial; I guess the argument will be if she'd just gone on a SAC - or taken the points and a fine if she wasn't eligible for one of those - she could have just got on with it! I'm just saying her case is very different to the others being tried in that particular court because the others have actual victims - wether that be the people who were killed, abused or their families. Her case does not technically have a victim unless you consider the law/government to be the victim.
Her speeding was petty and I understand the case is not about the speeding I was just highlighting the point that her trial for PCOJ shows just how serious things can get for even petty, victimless offences like speeding.
It just blows my mind a little that something like speeding can snowball into you being tried in one of the highest courts of the land alongside terrorists, murderers and rapists! There is a little bit inside me that thinks, whats the point? She was speeding, nobody got hurt, get on with it.
It is however "interesting" that resources can invariably be found to follow-up anything speeding related - and as in this case turn it into a much more serious charge - whereas it seems much more problematic for many other offences (even though those offences often do have a victim); funny old world sometimes......
Slaav said:
saaby93 said:
BrabusMog said:
saaby93 said:
Camoradi said:
The police had no choice but to carry it through in my opinion.
Agreed.The question is should they have then stopped when it was confirmed the brother was the one who'd done the PCoJ, or pushed it to court just in case the MP has too. If it was ordinary Joe that may have been enough but because MP, better run it to court.
We'll see which way it goes
However if its passed to a family member who fills it in and sends it off as it was them, theyre not going to be taken to court for misfilling in the form as justice will end up correctly dealt with
Whats gone wrong here is the brother has filled in the name of yet another person, to try to bring the process to an end
It's agreed that's PCoJ.
The question before the court is, did the MP tell her brother to do that
She says no
Prosecution says yes
Jury yet to determine
As she has changed her mind on occasion through this process?
Surely as long as youre honest about it, it's fine. It's a normal thing that happens.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff