Crime and punishment

[Red Devil]

If what is alleged is true, I hope this individual meets the same fate as Chris Huhne. A spell as a guest of Her Majesty.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...

And her brother can join her.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...

How embarrassing for Mr Corbyn to have Party Whip being involved in such shenanigans

Her previous career was as a solicitor. If convicted, I hope that means she is disbarred from practising again.

[Red Devil]

Cooperman said:

If you deliberately provide the incorrect name and are found to have done so you will probably be imprisoned.

No complaint on that score AFAIAC.

Cooperman said:

The need to be able to use threats to gain the identity of a driver is now established as the way it works. I guess we have to be happy with that.

Responding to a S.172 is not a confession. It is merely the provision of information. The EHCR decided over 10 years ago that it was proportionate.

Cooperman said:

Is this the only area of our law where you are required to establish yours or someone else's guilt at pains of a conviction for not doing so?

S.172 does not establish guilt either. It merely identifies who has a case to answer. Nobody is denied their day in court to defend the allegation. The prosecution still have to prove their case.

Speed cameras merely make that task relatively straightforward. The irony being that the entire industry was kick started by a Dutch rally driver who invented a device to improve his cornering speed!.

[Red Devil]

surveyor_101 said:

Red Devil said:

S.172 does not establish guilt either. It merely identifies who has a case to answer. Nobody is denied their day in court to defend the allegation. The prosecution still have to prove their case.

I got NIP last month and sent it back for speed awareness and got a letter back with bold letters saying you have admitted the offence but you have already done a SAC in the last 3 years, so pay the fine and send your licence off.

A great many motorists misunderstand the distinction between S.172 and a NIP. The former is directed to the RK and asks for a name and address. No more, no less.
The latter is what it says on the tin. If S.172 is not issued/not complied with, no prosecution can take place because the state has no proof of who the driver is.
That's why TPTB decided to make the points punishment for the 'failing to furnish' by the RK greater than the one against the driver for a low level speeding offence.

The offer (which is entirely at the discretion of the police) of a SAC is an alternative to prosecution. It's solely your choice whether to accept it.
You did, but your 'previous' disqualified you from being eligible. Unfortunately they managed to 'join the dots' and discovered that awkward fact.

surveyor_101 said:

I assume I am guilty now should I chose a court appareance?

What you decide to assume is up to you. The SAC is merely an alternative disposal carrot.*. It was your free choice to go for it.
Until you did, your presumption of innocence still existed. At that point, you could still have opted for a trial.

 * It's purpose is obvious: to save time and reduce the cost to the public purse.

We're drifting off topic already and we're still only on page 1.
I'm would be more interested in your opinion about the case I posted.
Do you think the MP did what is alleged and, if so, what should the sentence be?

[Red Devil]

Derek Smith said:

surveyor_101 said:

I would hope she would have to stand down as MP and either way now. If she is found guilty of APCofJ then a 6 months inside out in 3. I assume she has points already that has not been aired? I can't imagine why a clean licence holder would try this on.

The justice system seems to view it pretty dimly and I would expect getting a fresh SC clearance if I had done such a thing would be a no no. So how can you have a well paid mp or goverment job?

Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 14th November 13:29

If she is found guilty then that alone is not enough to mean she is kicked out. If you is sentenced to more than a year, then she is disqualifed from sitting as an MP for a year. Oddly, she may seek reelection. If her sonstituents feel so motivated they can return her. And probably will.

If convicted and sentenced to a prison term she becomes subject to the Recall of MPs Act 2015.
It only needs 10% of the registered electorate to ratify the petition and she's out.
With a majority of only 607 at her election I reckon it might not be that hard to garner that percentage.
She can stand again* when a by-election is called but with such a slim majority I reckon she's on a sticky wicket.

 * If Corbyn has any sense, he'll tell her to fall on her sword and then look for a safer seat to parachute her into at the next General Election.

Not sure where you get the one year from btw. The Act makes no mention of the length of the sentence imposed.

surveyor_101 said:

Latest https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...

Latest? Methinks not: that's the article I linked to when starting the thread.

[Red Devil]

Derek Smith said:

I'm not sure if this adds much to the charge. Is she still suggesting she wasn't the driver? I thought it was all down to: 'I just signed a bit of paper put in front of me'. Has her brother pleaded to it?

If the aid is all he says he is, I feel sorry for him. I can't have been easy for him. He's out of a job whichever way the trial decides and he'll probably not get another job in politics. I mean, who wants someone honest?

He is described in everything I have read as her former aide.
I have no idea what he does for a living now.

Is a lack of honesty and morals a 'must have' to work in politics?
Presumably that would be one of the questions at the interview stage.
Rather than a line in your CV.

[Red Devil]

Understandably, given the possibility of a custodial sentence, the judge wants a unanimous verdict. Hence the delay.
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/jur...

I'll hazard as guess he won't get one. If so, what might he accept: 9-2? Even that might not be achieved.

She claims she let her brother deal with it all (I'll lay money or her knowing he's a scofflaw).
AFAIK it is the RK's responsibility to attest by their signature that the information provided is the truth.

I'm not sure I would want someone that naive/careless/irresponsible** representing me in Parliament.
Oh, nearly forgot, apparently a being a commercial property solicitor is one of her excuses/get-out-of-jail cards.

 * delete as necessary

[Red Devil]

agtlaw said:

Deadlocked. Jury discharged. Retrial pending.

Quelle surprise. As I predicted last week no unanimity or majority.

agtlaw said:

I'm reminded that there was also a retrial in the Pryce case.

Do you suppose that the jury in the current case are equally intellectually challenged?
What happens if the same result occurs a second time?
Does the mincing machine grind on yet again until a not guilty/guilty verdict is returned?

[Red Devil]

The Surveyor said:

iandc said:

…….. begs the question WHY do it in the first place? …..

arrogance, stupidity, or just intrinsically dishonest

I was under the impression that those qualities were the standard benchmark for MPs.
Onasanya's mistake was to choose something where the consequences would definitely come back to bite her on the a**e.

2Btoo said:

untakenname said:

The leader has said she's not wanted in the party so why can't they force her out instead of asking her to resign?

As I understand it she is still an MP as she has been elected as one, although the Labour Party can 'disown' her and she therefore becomes an independent MP. However the Labour party does not have the power to cease her tenure as an MP - they have many delusions of power and this is one of them.

Correct. It is the voters alone who decide who represents them, not party leaders.

2Btoo said:

untakenname said:

Onasanya has been "administratively suspended" from Labour, and party leader Mr Corbyn said she could not remain as an MP after her conviction.
She might
Speaking during a visit to Northampton, he said: "Obviously, she is not going to remain as the member of parliament because she been found guilty in a court of law."

Corbyn is wrong. I think she needs to be sentenced to a jail term of a year or more for her to have to step down.

Also correct. See - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/34/secti...

If Corbyn had said 'remain as the Labour Member of Parliament' then that would have been an accurate statement.
The whip has been withdrawn and I can't see it being restored, so she is a busted flush as far as her political future is concerned.
She should fall on her sword and go. Before, hopefully, the court does it for her.

As for comparing herself to Jesus, Moses, and Daniel - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/34/secti...
If she learns some humility and keeps her head down she could yet do some good for society (as did John Profumo).

[Red Devil]

Love these responses.

"I thought your number one breakfast choice was porridge."

"I thought the idea of prison was to reduce the number of cereal offenders?"