Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.

[ashleyman]

REALIST123 said:

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!

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......

I wonder if her initial crime had been something like being accused of overtaking on a double white line on dash cam footage or perhaps car theft, if the Police would have gone to all this trouble or if they'd have just told the victim to speak to their insurers or that there wasn't enough evidence. There's always resources for speeding.

Go back to sleep, mate, you just don’t get it.....

In what way do you think I don't get it?

[saaby93]

ashleyman said:

REALIST123 said:

Go back to sleep, mate, you just don’t get it.....

In what way do you think I don't get it?

The trials not about that
It's about whether she coerced her brother to lie on the NIP.
She says she didnt
Prosecution says they think she did

It does seem to be treated as requiring a punishment close to a ritual burning at the stake.
Whether it's completely out of proportion to the original offence is another issue

[98elise]

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.

She's not in court for speeding though.

[saaby93]

98elise 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.

She's not in court for speeding though.

The level of punishment may be there because someone else ( the Russian guy) could have taken the rap for it.
In due course her brother will find out what that punishment is

Meanwhile this case is about whether or not she encouraged him to do it

[Stan the Bat]

Hosenbugler said:

This piece of work is my MP. 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.

You voted for her didn't you .

[Slaav]

saaby93 said:

ashleyman said:

REALIST123 said:

Go back to sleep, mate, you just don’t get it.....

In what way do you think I don't get it?

The trials not about that
It's about whether she coerced her brother to lie on the NIP.
She says she didnt
Prosecution says they think she did

It does seem to be treated as requiring a punishment close to a ritual burning at the stake.
Whether it's completely out of proportion to the original offence is another issue

Not picking on you - honest!

“It's about whether she coerced her brother to lie on the NIP.”

It isn’t!!!

It is about whether SHE PtCoJ!!!

Nobody has EVER suggested that she coerced her brother to do this?

PLEASE tell us all where you are getting this from or what ‘skin you have in this game’??

And any chance of answering my reasonably put questions re her innocence?

I’m really not picking on you here but PLEASE address these specific points?




Ps - or are you Wee Festus???

[saaby93]

Slaav said:

Not picking on you - honest!
“It's about whether she coerced her brother to lie on the NIP.”
It isn’t!!!
It is about whether SHE PtCoJ!!!

What other PCoJ is there that's come out?

ETA
or do you mean when, because she didnt believe she was driving that day (she thought she was in Westminster) she took the form round to her mothers house so whoever else was allowed to drive the car could fill it in?
Is there anything overly unusual in that

Later (was it when questioned) she realised she wasnt in Westminster so may well have been driving
Again -that's not unusual to find youve made a mistake when you dig deeper

Trouble is by that time clever bruv has already sent off the form claiming it was the Russian guy driving

It'll be interesting to see if the Jury decides part of that is PCoJ (on her part - bruv has already fezzed up_

Edited by saaby93 on Thursday 13th December 22:30

[Slaav]

saaby93 said:

Slaav said:

Not picking on you - honest!
“It's about whether she coerced her brother to lie on the NIP.”
It isn’t!!!
It is about whether SHE PtCoJ!!!

What other PCoJ is there that's come out?

Err ..... really???

A) Who signed the form?
B) did she BELIEVE she was in Parliament during recess?
C) why did she avoid the investigators?
D) was she driving?
E) why did she lie about driving?
F) did she not give a fk and just left the papers on her mums table?
G) why did she ‘stand by her submissions’?
H) who actually signed the form?
I) when or where did she or anybody bring your interpretation into things?

To be fair, you are in danger of winning ‘our’ little discussion by refusing to address particular issues or answering simple questions???

I’ve got a proper bone in my mouth on this topic and I’m desperately close to dropping it and walking away unless you are prepared to address SPECIFIC points and simple questions??

Or ARE YOU IN FACT WEE FESTUS?

[saaby93]

Slaav said:

A) Who signed the form?

ok i forgot about who signed the form
Does Bruv say he forged her signature when he sent off the form?
Or did she say she signed the form before dropping off at her mums
Or does the Prosecution say all that's rubbish and she signed the form and made up the story herself about the Russian guy
Is she that clever
Why dont they fit dashcams on jurors

[gazza285]

saaby93 said:

Or do you mean when, because she didnt believe she was driving that day (she thought she was in Westminster) she took the form round to her mothers house so whoever else was allowed to drive the car could fill it in?
Is there anything overly unusual in that?

It is her job to fill in the form as the registered keeper, whether she believes she was in Westminster or not, she is responsible for the vehicle.

[saaby93]

gazza285 said:

saaby93 said:

Or do you mean when, because she didnt believe she was driving that day (she thought she was in Westminster) she took the form round to her mothers house so whoever else was allowed to drive the car could fill it in?
Is there anything overly unusual in that?

It is her job to fill in the form as the registered keeper, whether she believes she was in Westminster or not, she is responsible for the vehicle.

See earlier - at most that's 6 points for not returning the form.

[Slaav]

Saaby,

Did she do it?

Is she guilty?

Is she innocent?

Will she be found guilty?

Will she be found innocent?

PLEASE ANSWER OR ARE YOU WEE FESTUS?

[Don Roque]

saaby93 said:

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

Are you completely stupid? It's set up this way so that the defence cannot be ambushed. It puts the prosecution at a disadvantage because they must go in blind whereas the defence have had full disclosure of the prosecution case and ample time to concoct a defence, whereas the prosecution must look to second guess the defence strategy. This is entirely stacked in favour of the defendant, as most of the adversarial system is.

[poo at Paul's]

She will get off make no mistake.
If she was a Tory, she'd have been hung drawn and quartered by now.


What will the brother get / has he got? Three fifths of fk all, you can bet.

Get all the cards out, thrown them up in the air, if you have enough, one is bound to land right way up.

[saaby93]

poo at Paul's said:

She will get off make no mistake.

and that's the problem with the system
Even if someone is innocent there'll still be a number of people that think she 'got off or 'got away with'

It's not been decided yet so we dont yet know remain innocent or found guilty

[hutchst]

douglasb said:

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

I think I see a bit of a pattern here.

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

poo at Paul's said:

She will get off make no mistake.

and that's the problem with the system
Even if someone is innocent there'll still be a number of people that think she 'got off or 'got away with'

It's not been decided yet so we dont yet know remain innocent or found guilty

There seems to be little doubt that she isn’t innocent. It is a matter of whether she gets away with it or not.

[AJL308]

Don Roque said:

saaby93 said:

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

Are you completely stupid? It's set up this way so that the defence cannot be ambushed. It puts the prosecution at a disadvantage because they must go in blind whereas the defence have had full disclosure of the prosecution case and ample time to concoct a defence, whereas the prosecution must look to second guess the defence strategy. This is entirely stacked in favour of the defendant, as most of the adversarial system is.

Whilst this is all true, surely that isn't the actual reason as to why the prosecution goes first?

If it didn't you could never successfully prosecute anyone as there would no case before the court for the defendant to answer!

[AJL308]

saaby93 said:

gazza285 said:

saaby93 said:

Or do you mean when, because she didnt believe she was driving that day (she thought she was in Westminster) she took the form round to her mothers house so whoever else was allowed to drive the car could fill it in?
Is there anything overly unusual in that?

It is her job to fill in the form as the registered keeper, whether she believes she was in Westminster or not, she is responsible for the vehicle.

See earlier - at most that's 6 points for not returning the form.

Or several years if she knew that the person filling it in was going to lie.

[Ian974]

AJL308 said:

Don Roque said:

saaby93 said:

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

Are you completely stupid? It's set up this way so that the defence cannot be ambushed. It puts the prosecution at a disadvantage because they must go in blind whereas the defence have had full disclosure of the prosecution case and ample time to concoct a defence, whereas the prosecution must look to second guess the defence strategy. This is entirely stacked in favour of the defendant, as most of the adversarial system is.

Whilst this is all true, surely that isn't the actual reason as to why the prosecution goes first?

If it didn't you could never successfully prosecute anyone as there would no case before the court for the defendant to answer!

"I dont know what it was I didn't do, but I didn't do it, I was at home!"