Another MP Accused of lying about speeding ticket.

[anonymous-user]

Assuming all the above to be true, what a stupid cow!

[anonymous-user]

mouseymousey said:

If found guilty she is going down. No way can she not be given a custodial.

I remain hopeful that this will be the outcome

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The baby she’s having with her lesbian partner?

[anonymous-user]

We have an MP who at times can’t remember where she is or what she’s doing and confuses the now with 2 years earlier.

Just the sort we need making our laws........

[anonymous-user]

julian64 said:

Why is there a massive thread on this? Why are you lot so keen for her to have life/career changing repercussions for this

PCOJ is a joke most of the time, but especially so when used to apply the full force of the law on a trivial speeding ticket. It makes me ashamed to be British, and I view it in the same way the law deals with journalists in the UAE.

I think it’s fair enough to expect those who are paid to make and implement the laws that others must abide by to abide by them themselves.

And to be exceptionally punished should they abuse them and their positions.

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

REALIST123 said:

julian64 said:

Why is there a massive thread on this? Why are you lot so keen for her to have life/career changing repercussions for this

PCOJ is a joke most of the time, but especially so when used to apply the full force of the law on a trivial speeding ticket. It makes me ashamed to be British, and I view it in the same way the law deals with journalists in the UAE.

I think it’s fair enough to expect those who are paid to make and implement the laws that others must abide by to abide by them themselves.

And to be exceptionally punished should they abuse them and their positions.

While accepting the first, it's still not clear the second has happened.
How difficult is it to get a dozen people to agree on something.

What? It’s happened many times.

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

REALIST123 said:

saaby93 said:

REALIST123 said:

julian64 said:

Why is there a massive thread on this? Why are you lot so keen for her to have life/career changing repercussions for this

PCOJ is a joke most of the time, but especially so when used to apply the full force of the law on a trivial speeding ticket. It makes me ashamed to be British, and I view it in the same way the law deals with journalists in the UAE.

I think it’s fair enough to expect those who are paid to make and implement the laws that others must abide by to abide by them themselves.

And to be exceptionally punished should they abuse them and their positions.

While accepting the first, it's still not clear the second has happened.
How difficult is it to get a dozen people to agree on something.

What? It’s happened many times.

Forget that - it's all mixed up

indeed. I see now my question and statement could relate to your final point. I’m sure that has happened before.......except when paying the restaurant bill after a good night out.

[anonymous-user]

DBSV8 said:

any update

Monday.

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

Sheepshanks said:

The trouble is she gives a wide range of people a reason to let her off.

She can only be 'let off' if she's done it

At least the Beeb have prefaced the prosecutions claim with 'alleged' this time

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

When do we start taking bets on how round 2 turns out?

I don’t think there’s any doubt that she did it. She admits she did it. It’s just she’s trying to excuse what she did.

Laughable.

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

REALIST123 said:

I don’t think there’s any doubt that she did it. She admits she did it. It’s just she’s trying to excuse what she did.

Laughable.

What has she admitted to

Being the driver

Seeing the form.

Not completing the form.

Allowing the form to be completed by someone else, naming yet another person.

Lying about who was the driver.

Her excuse is that she made false assumptions and was ignorant of the law, both pretty lame excuses, especially for an MP Lawyer.

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

REALIST123 said:

I don’t think there’s any doubt that she did it. She admits she did it. It’s just she’s trying to excuse what she did.

Laughable.

What has she admitted to

Being the driver

Seeing the form.

Not completing the form.

Allowing the form to be completed by someone else, naming yet another person.

Lying about who was the driver.

Her excuse is that she made false assumptions and was ignorant of the law, both pretty lame excuses, especially for an MP Lawyer.

[anonymous-user]

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.....

[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.

[anonymous-user]

WinstonWolf said:

GUILTY

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

That has cheered me right up

Could both she and her brother (who pleaded guilty on three counts at a previous hearing) be sent to prison? Please let that happen.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 19th December 15:49

[anonymous-user]

I'm reading on twitter that it was a unanimous decision by the jury

[anonymous-user]

Brother pleaded guilty to 3 counts earlier - I reckon that is 12 months

She has dragged it out not guilty until the bitter end - could that be 24 months? Maybe more as she is MP & Solicitor

[anonymous-user]

Derek Smith said:

Whilst she will probably go to prison, and I can see and understand the reason, it’s rather pointless I think. She’s no threat to the public. She’s taking up a spot that could be used for an extended sentence on a rapist or burglar.

I can't say I'm sorry if the appearance of arrogance that has come through is correct.

Get her in the big house asap

[anonymous-user]

Roofless Toothless said:

johnxjsc1985 said:

Can we send her a welcome to your new home Card. Will she be allowed to hold her Surgeries from behind bars .Maybe the reason for Corbyn saying "stupid woman" was because someone whispered in his ear "she has been found guilty".

Which, of course, would be equally mysogenistic.

Is it still misogynistic if it’s true? Which it clearly would be if the above were the case.

[anonymous-user]

Merry Xmas Fiona and a Happy New Year inside, hopefully.

A few months reflecting on your dishonesty and duplicity may not come amiss.

[anonymous-user]

98elise said:

AJL308 said:

Rovinghawk said:

Is PtCoJ sufficient that her solicitor career is on the rocks too?

Without any question She's fked!

She has pretty much lost everything through stupidity

Her current job (assuming she resigns)
Her chosen career (struck off)
The chance of another career (who would employ a famous criminal)

All to avoid a small speeding fine that most of the population will guilty of at some point. No stigma or shame, just a small fine (or even a course).

Precisely. A ‘stupid woman’ indeed.