Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.
Discussion
Defence is underway neatly adding in to all the other ticked boxes that she is a churchgoer and suffered a relapse of multiple sclerosis in September last year and faced challenges after being told she had an incurable degenerative disease.....
She assumed it could not have been her driving because she would have been in Westminster that day of the week - neatly forgetting that HoC had recessed for the summer by that time
You would have thought she would have folded when the aide stuck the knife in last week
She assumed it could not have been her driving because she would have been in Westminster that day of the week - neatly forgetting that HoC had recessed for the summer by that time
You would have thought she would have folded when the aide stuck the knife in last week
poo at Paul's said:
So she assumed a Russian who moved out of her flat a couple of years ago was driving it, as she was in HOC during the summer recess.
Even a black disabled Lesbian would struggle with that excuse!! But as a leftie, she will get away with it.
I think I can pop in tomorrow with a bag of popcorn.... and some custard! Does anybody know if you can bring Custard into the Old Girl?Even a black disabled Lesbian would struggle with that excuse!! But as a leftie, she will get away with it.
It's an interesting use of the law this one
If as is reported she thought she was in the House of Commons that week and thought it was someone else who must have been driving, yet it was her all along thats not peverting the course of justice, it's making a mistake
On the other hand if it was someone else driving, it's not her anyway
What evidence is there it was her?
If as is reported she thought she was in the House of Commons that week and thought it was someone else who must have been driving, yet it was her all along thats not peverting the course of justice, it's making a mistake
On the other hand if it was someone else driving, it's not her anyway
What evidence is there it was her?
saaby93 said:
It's an interesting use of the law this one
If as is reported she thought she was in the House of Commons that week and thought it was someone else who must have been driving, yet it was her all along thats not peverting the course of justice, it's making a mistake
On the other hand if it was someone else driving, it's not her anyway
What evidence is there it was her?
Her two mobile phones were registered as handshaking with the mobile phone cell adjacent to the speed camera concerned, and her former aide, who lives on the same road as the speed camera, said in court that only she was in the car when it arrived at his house.If as is reported she thought she was in the House of Commons that week and thought it was someone else who must have been driving, yet it was her all along thats not peverting the course of justice, it's making a mistake
On the other hand if it was someone else driving, it's not her anyway
What evidence is there it was her?
What has her "relapse of multiple sclerosis in September last year" (i.e. two months afterwards) got to do with who was speeding in July? Another chancer.
saaby93 said:
CoolHands said:
Well, mobile phone evidence? Witness evidence? (She was at their house) or dont those count
They may or may not dowhat do they have to do with the case?
"what do they have to do with the case?" - I think it is called evidence and facts? As in, items that are important to show that she is a lying cow? (Allegedly..)
IF you have read the available reported evidence and arguments to date, she claims that she was not driving the car at the time and had lent it to a random victim of her recidivism. Now that person may well have been driving the car at the time but I would imagine she would have checked unless it was a fabrication? I believe (without seeing every bit of evidence) she WAS driving the car and deliberately gave false details for all sorts of reasons - not the least being that her claims have been proven to be pretty much impossible and her brother has used this ruse before. I believe it has been reported elsewhere that he has pleaded GUILTY to PCoJ regarding THIS offence so unless he lies through his teeth and admits that HE completed the NIP forms incorrectly and falsely on her behalf, then she is stuffed.
If I were asked what I was doing a few weeks ago when my own car was captured speeding, the very first thing I would do was check my own diary to see if I was anywhere near the incident. The next thing I would do is check with the Mrs if it was one of the very few times she was driving - we share cars and I drive hers occasionally but she has never once driven 'mine' for all sorts of reasons but I digress....
Having established that I may well have been driving the car at the time according to my diary and my wife's recollection, I would complete the NIP etc accordingly.
Others may take a different stance and start to weave a web of lies and deceit whereby they attempted to use a ruse that has seemingly worked in the past. That is a choice they make.
If the person I was then visiting on that occasion comes forward and states that I had arrived on my own in the car in question - would I continue with the charade that someone else (who I believe from memory wasn't even in the country at the time) was driving?
Really??
EVIDENCE has been placed before the Court that seems to completely destroy her assertion that someone else was driving and as I have stated earlier, make it HIGHLY LIKELY that she was driving and knowingly misinformed the authorities. The witness coming forward appears to have destroyed her case which may explain why mud is now being thrown against the wall like a drunk Chimp in the hope that some of it sticks and she garners a modicum of sympathy and is given the benefit of the doubt.
When completely irrelevant material appears to be used to garner sympathy and understanding, I figure the brief knows the case is lost and has simply started on mitigation with sentencing in mind.
Slaav said:
Not good at quoting nor highlighting so for the benefit of doubt:
"what do they have to do with the case?" - I think it is called evidence and facts? As in, items that are important to show that she is a lying cow? (Allegedly..)
IF you have read the available reported evidence and arguments to date, she claims that she was not driving the car at the time and had lent it to a random victim of her recidivism. Now that person may well have been driving the car at the time but I would imagine she would have checked unless it was a fabrication? I believe (without seeing every bit of evidence) she WAS driving the car and deliberately gave false details for all sorts of reasons - not the least being that her claims have been proven to be pretty much impossible and her brother has used this ruse before. I believe it has been reported elsewhere that he has pleaded GUILTY to PCoJ regarding THIS offence so unless he lies through his teeth and admits that HE completed the NIP forms incorrectly and falsely on her behalf, then she is stuffed.
If I were asked what I was doing a few weeks ago when my own car was captured speeding, the very first thing I would do was check my own diary to see if I was anywhere near the incident. The next thing I would do is check with the Mrs if it was one of the very few times she was driving - we share cars and I drive hers occasionally but she has never once driven 'mine' for all sorts of reasons but I digress....
Having established that I may well have been driving the car at the time according to my diary and my wife's recollection, I would complete the NIP etc accordingly.
Thats right and if you get to that point and asuming neither of you have a diary, neither of you can remember driving, but the cars used by someone else, that's who you put down."what do they have to do with the case?" - I think it is called evidence and facts? As in, items that are important to show that she is a lying cow? (Allegedly..)
IF you have read the available reported evidence and arguments to date, she claims that she was not driving the car at the time and had lent it to a random victim of her recidivism. Now that person may well have been driving the car at the time but I would imagine she would have checked unless it was a fabrication? I believe (without seeing every bit of evidence) she WAS driving the car and deliberately gave false details for all sorts of reasons - not the least being that her claims have been proven to be pretty much impossible and her brother has used this ruse before. I believe it has been reported elsewhere that he has pleaded GUILTY to PCoJ regarding THIS offence so unless he lies through his teeth and admits that HE completed the NIP forms incorrectly and falsely on her behalf, then she is stuffed.
If I were asked what I was doing a few weeks ago when my own car was captured speeding, the very first thing I would do was check my own diary to see if I was anywhere near the incident. The next thing I would do is check with the Mrs if it was one of the very few times she was driving - we share cars and I drive hers occasionally but she has never once driven 'mine' for all sorts of reasons but I digress....
Having established that I may well have been driving the car at the time according to my diary and my wife's recollection, I would complete the NIP etc accordingly.
I'm not sure what she's claimed at the moment, whether it's still that she wasnt driving or that shes put down who she thought at the time
It doesnt really matter.
The prosecution have placed their assertions about her being in a house or something but dont think there's been anything about her actually being the driver.
It's all too muddy at the moment but hope the court has some more in depth info to make the decision.
And that decision isnt about whether she was driving but whether she said something she knew not to be true at the time.
Who's got the bags of popcorn
saaby93 said:
hats right and if you get to that point and asuming neither of you have a diary, neither of you can remember driving, but the cars used by someone else, that's who you put down.
I'm not sure what she's claimed at the moment, whether it's still that she wasnt driving or that shes put down who she thought at the time
It doesnt really matter.
The prosecution have placed their assertions about her being in a house or something but dont think there's been anything about her actually being the driver.
It's all too muddy at the moment but hope the court has some more in depth info to make the decision.
And that decision isnt about whether she was driving but whether she said something she knew not to be true at the time.
Who's got the bags of popcorn
I wondered if you would reply quickly I'm not sure what she's claimed at the moment, whether it's still that she wasnt driving or that shes put down who she thought at the time
It doesnt really matter.
The prosecution have placed their assertions about her being in a house or something but dont think there's been anything about her actually being the driver.
It's all too muddy at the moment but hope the court has some more in depth info to make the decision.
And that decision isnt about whether she was driving but whether she said something she knew not to be true at the time.
Who's got the bags of popcorn
The case is about PCoJ and as you say, not about speeding per se.
Something that would be interesting would be to know her office expenses and her detailed processes running her constituency. Are you suggesting that a sitting MP and qualified Solicitor doesn't run and manage a diary system? Really? I am actually surprised that the prosecution hasn't dragged this up already....
Are you also suggesting that she may have inadvertently replied by mistake that somebody she had no link to bar the fact they he was a tenant in a property that they had a link to was lent the car when not in the country?
If one was to follow your suggestions through, then the very LEAST that she is guilty of is stupidity and utter incompetence. Should that in itself disbar her from office? I would suggest so but let's be honest here - do you really think that from what has been 'reported'?
Truly?
Slaav said:
saaby93 said:
hats right and if you get to that point and asuming neither of you have a diary, neither of you can remember driving, but the cars used by someone else, that's who you put down.
I'm not sure what she's claimed at the moment, whether it's still that she wasnt driving or that shes put down who she thought at the time
It doesnt really matter.
The prosecution have placed their assertions about her being in a house or something but dont think there's been anything about her actually being the driver.
It's all too muddy at the moment but hope the court has some more in depth info to make the decision.
And that decision isnt about whether she was driving but whether she said something she knew not to be true at the time.
Who's got the bags of popcorn
I wondered if you would reply quickly I'm not sure what she's claimed at the moment, whether it's still that she wasnt driving or that shes put down who she thought at the time
It doesnt really matter.
The prosecution have placed their assertions about her being in a house or something but dont think there's been anything about her actually being the driver.
It's all too muddy at the moment but hope the court has some more in depth info to make the decision.
And that decision isnt about whether she was driving but whether she said something she knew not to be true at the time.
Who's got the bags of popcorn
The case is about PCoJ and as you say, not about speeding per se.
Something that would be interesting would be to know her office expenses and her detailed processes running her constituency. Are you suggesting that a sitting MP and qualified Solicitor doesn't run and manage a diary system? Really? I am actually surprised that the prosecution hasn't dragged this up already....
Are you also suggesting that she may have inadvertently replied by mistake that somebody she had no link to bar the fact they he was a tenant in a property that they had a link to was lent the car when not in the country?
If one was to follow your suggestions through, then the very LEAST that she is guilty of is stupidity and utter incompetence. Should that in itself disbar her from office? I would suggest so but let's be honest here - do you really think that from what has been 'reported'?
Truly?
There have been other cases reported in the media which from the way it's been reported youd think it was a dead cert, and why bother putting it before a court.
When you cut through it there's not been enough concrete, just conjecture so far, but we wont know fully whats being said
Isn't one important factor the point that EVEN IF she did think it was not her driving it, why would it have been a Russian bloke who was a previous tenant in her house that would have been driving her car?
It's one thing nominating your missus or mum as possible driver, if they drove your car regularly, or even on occasions, but nominating some bloke who lives in Russia that used to live at your house a year before seems to be where a "mistake" becomes maybe PCOJ?
Not that it will matter, she will get off, no mistake.
It's one thing nominating your missus or mum as possible driver, if they drove your car regularly, or even on occasions, but nominating some bloke who lives in Russia that used to live at your house a year before seems to be where a "mistake" becomes maybe PCOJ?
Not that it will matter, she will get off, no mistake.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff