Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Chris Huhne pleads guilty
Topic Started: Feb 5 2013, 12:37 PM (461 Views)
rumbaba
Member Avatar

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21332684

Hell hath no fury.............

It's hard to see who is the winner in all this: I suppose, strictly speaking, 'justice' but was it really worth it Mrs Huhne?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mobson
Member Avatar

10 years too late! <doh>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lurkalot

pity legal advice was not sought 10 years ago. he should try not to pretend he is his wife in prison - i'll give him that advice for free! <laugh>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hugh Mosby-Joaquin
Member Avatar

For Huhne, the bell tolls.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
madfor4

Hugh Mosby-Joaquin
Feb 5 2013, 03:39 PM
For Huhne, the bell tolls.
<harharhar>

I feel sorry for all those LibDem activists who worked hard to get him elected; that said, I find the LibDem Party, Ministers and many MPs beneath contempt.
They have reneged on almost every promise and 'core value' they espoused. Laws swindled the taxpayer and was brought back, Clegg lied about tuition fees and now Huhne has shown his contempt for the law (spending £500K trying every avenue to get the case dropped)

So much for the LibDem promise of "Honest Politics".... <steam> <dalek>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hugh Mosby-Joaquin
Member Avatar

madfor4
Feb 5 2013, 03:58 PM
Hugh Mosby-Joaquin
Feb 5 2013, 03:39 PM
For Huhne, the bell tolls.
<harharhar>

I feel sorry for all those LibDem activists who worked hard to get him elected; that said, I find the LibDem Party, Ministers and many MPs beneath contempt.
They have reneged on almost every promise and 'core value' they espoused. Laws swindled the taxpayer and was brought back, Clegg lied about tuition fees and now Huhne has shown his contempt for the law (spending £500K trying every avenue to get the case dropped)

So much for the LibDem promise of "Honest Politics".... <steam> <dalek>
I absolutely agree. But I despair at the attitude of the Lib-dems ( I know a few) who refuse to believe that their party is up the proverbial creek, and who cling onto a notion that, yes, Clegg has made a mistake or two, but are still faithful to the Lib-dem creed (whatever it might be; "thou shalt always agree with the winning side", perhaps. )
And Huhne's case should convince them to finally chuck their fading yellow rosettes in the bin.
Edited by Hugh Mosby-Joaquin, Feb 5 2013, 04:05 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
madfor4

Hugh Mosby-Joaquin
Feb 5 2013, 04:05 PM
I absolutely agree. But I despair at the attitude of the Lib-dems ( I know a few) who refuse to believe that their party is up the proverbial creek, and who cling onto a notion that, yes, Clegg has made a mistake or two, but are still faithful to the Lib-dem creed (whatever it might be; "thou shalt always agree with the winning side", perhaps. )
And Huhne's case should convince them to finally chuck their fading yellow rosettes in the bin.
I know a few decent ones; however, the 'Orange Bookers'are running the show and are just Tories <devi>;; in everything but name....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mobson
Member Avatar

I'm pleased to put on record that I unknowingly know no Lib Dems - they are not within my remit.... :blink:

Politics are very much to the fore at the mo, as I'm currently watching the debate going on in the H of C relating the vote tonight for the second reading of the Marriage: same sex bill ...it's pretty heady stuff... :'(
Edited by Mobson, Feb 5 2013, 04:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hugh Mosby-Joaquin
Member Avatar

Mobson
Feb 5 2013, 04:39 PM
I'm pleased to put on record that I unknowingly know no Lib Dems - they are not within my remit.... :blink:

Not that they are prepared to admit to being so....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caro

His crime seems to me trivial beyond anything; I recall when we were in England some pensioner was convicted (jailed - surely not, but he might have been) for the same thing. Absolutely ridiculous. Slightly more understandable if a politician had done this just the other day and was forced to resign, but ten years ago, and just the once? I thought there was a statute of limitation for small offences. One of our politicians here resigned from parliament but had no further punishment when it came out that he had stolen the identity of a dead baby once in his fairly long-ago past. I think he resigned over something different anyway. Now that to my mind was beyond the pale, but exactly what would have been achieved by jailing him, beyond cluttering up our already far too full jails?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mobson
Member Avatar

He lied and tried to deceive and got found out; there is a points system relating to speeding when driving on our roads in the UK; if you speed and you are caught after a time you must take the points and the consequences of a ban....had he done that in 2003, yes he would have had a bit of inconvenience vis-a-vis his travel arrangements but surely he could have sorted out something rather than have this hanging over his head; had he perhaps not had an affair later and aroused such feelings of vengeance in his wife - well we all would be none the wiser!

Vicky Pryce, his ex-wife, is standing trial for perverting the course of justice - she denies the charge. In Southwark Crown court yesterday she admitted that she wasn't driving but was forced to take the points by her then husband - the jury will have to decide if she was a victim of 'marital coercion' especially after she admitted that she set out to bring him down when she approached a journalist at the Sunday Times to tell her story in 2011 after he admitted an affair...her trial is expected to last a week.

No doubt Chris Huhne and his legal team will be watching and waiting for the outcome of the trial to see how the wind lies with regard to his.....
Edited by Mobson, Feb 6 2013, 09:47 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lurkalot

Mobson
Feb 6 2013, 08:20 AM
He lied and tried to deceive and got found out; there is a points system relating to speeding when driving on our roads in the UK; if you speed and you are caught after a time you must take the points and the consequences of a ban....
I think other couple's will have done this too. There is also the issue about insurance as points will increase the premiums. Fortunately nowadays, cameras are more suffisticated where is is clear if it is a male or female driving.

In eastenders, there was a recent story line where the drunk driver said she was not driving and the passenger took the blame for drivng the car.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
madfor4

Caro
Feb 6 2013, 02:39 AM
His crime seems to me trivial beyond anything; I recall when we were in England some pensioner was convicted (jailed - surely not, but he might have been) for the same thing. Absolutely ridiculous. Slightly more understandable if a politician had done this just the other day and was forced to resign, but ten years ago, and just the once? I thought there was a statute of limitation for small offences. One of our politicians here resigned from parliament but had no further punishment when it came out that he had stolen the identity of a dead baby once in his fairly long-ago past. I think he resigned over something different anyway. Now that to my mind was beyond the pale, but exactly what would have been achieved by jailing him, beyond cluttering up our already far too full jails?
His crime was not speeding it was 'attempting to pervert the course of justice'.....More than lying he 'cluttered' up the justice system and used his position as a minister trying to get the case dismissed (forcing the police to investigate themselves)...Heavens only knows what the costs to the taxpayer was....
It was only when all his 'shennanigans' failed that he pleaded guilty.....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mobson
Member Avatar

Exactly and even in his 'guilty' statement the day before yesterday he framed it so 'even though this was 10 years ago'...well Mr Huhne, cheats never prosper - perhaps you will remember that in future....


Some facts from Traffic-Answers...

Q: How long are points valid for?
A: Points are valid on your licence for 3 years for the purposes of totting-up but will normally remain there for 4 years for admin purposes.

Q: How many points can I have before I get disqualified?
A: You can accrue up to 12 penalty points within any 3 years on your driving licence before you get disqualified under the totting-up procedure. This is simply where the total number of points on your driving licence is added up and if the total is equal to, or more than, 12 then you may be disqualified from driving, normally for 12 months.

Q: Is disqualification mandatory with 12 points?
A: No. You are allowed to plead what is known as "special circumstances" in a bid to avoid disqualification. This often means that you can claim that a special hardship would be forced upon you if you were to be disqualified from driving. If you were to lose your job if you lost your licence, for instance, then the magistrates might take the view that the punishment in your particular case would be out of keeping with the severity of the offence and would therefore allow you to keep your licence, albeit with a heavily increased fine. You can only claim "special circumstances" once because it is accepted that you will have had your chance to reform and if you then blow it, tough luck.
Edited by Mobson, Feb 6 2013, 02:15 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mobson
Member Avatar

madfor4
Feb 6 2013, 09:51 AM
...Heavens only knows what the costs to the taxpayer was....
...and still is, he is yet to come to trial although he will most likely be liable for all the costs...and since 1624 MPs have been banned from resigning their seat, so any member wanting to quit has to go through the process of applying for a paid office of the Crown, which automatically disqualifies them from holding a seat in the Commons. There are two such offices - Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds and of the Manor of Northstead. The Treasury has announced he has been appointed as the Steward and Bailiff of the Three Hundreds of Chiltern.
Edited by Mobson, Feb 6 2013, 10:02 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hugh Mosby-Joaquin
Member Avatar

...and will he be forced to pay back the "golden b*gger-off" payment that cabinet ministers get, (for what reason I cannot imagine,) upon leaving High Office? I believe it amounts to £16,000; a mere bit of loose change to the odious Huhne, but I don't suppose he will deign to return it, the greed-mongering git.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
caissier
Member Avatar
Administrator
I'm fairly sure perverting the course of justice is what Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer were sent to prison for and it is one of the charges against both Rebekkah Brookes and Andy Coulson. It is regarded as a very big deal, Caro, and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. It amounts to deceiving the justice system, of which it takes a dim view. On the strength of a lie, maybe under oath, accepted by a court, somebody else might go to prison or be fined a lot of money.

'Vicky' Price is trying to present herself as a poor wronged woman forced to become involved in all this but it sounds as though it was her fury and thirst for revenge which led her to contact a journalist and try to ruin Huhne. Her passion blinded herself to the fact that she would be held responsible as well. It's alarming that Huhne who might have eventually becomes Deputy PM can have have had such poor judgement in the first place and then to be so deluded as to think he could somehow tough it out. Perhaps he thought, "I'm a Government minister ..... this can't be happening!"

...... but then Lib-Dems / Liberals are an odd bunch - thinking back to Jeremy Thorpe, then others. It's as though they are high-minded idealists but also, on the quiet, a bit <wink> and a bit <whistles> - dodgy tendencies ...... Lloyd George! He was a Liberal!!

I knew slightly a young Lib/Dem councillor once, in south London, who lived in a nice council flat at a low rent but also had a rule-breaking big house in the country which he let out. "Don't tell anyone <wink> !!", he said.
Edited by caissier, Feb 6 2013, 01:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hugh Mosby-Joaquin
Member Avatar

I think you have it there, Caissier.
Torys are two-faced ~~they think one thing and say another.
Labour are whey-faced ~~they think many things and do little about them.
Lib-dems are faceless. ~~they spinelessly do whatever they want, irrespective of who (apart from themselves,) will benefit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mobson
Member Avatar

<magic>
caissier
Feb 6 2013, 01:43 PM
..... but then Lib-Dems / Liberals are an odd bunch - thinking back to Jeremy Thorpe, then others. It's as though they are high-minded idealists but also, on the quiet, a bit <wink> and a bit <whistles> - dodgy tendencies ...... Lloyd George! He was a Liberal!!
In the modern era, first there was Charles Kennedy and his drinking problem which turned into a Whitehall farce forcing him to reluctantly give up the party leadership. Watching the same sex debate yesterday in the House of Commons, as Simon Hughes started speaking I was reminded of his hypocrisy ...he tried to pull the wool over everyone's eyes about being gay - emphatic in his denial - until Jan 2006 when The Sun broke news that he had been using a men's chat room and he relented ...there's no problem with being gay but he categorically denied it...and would probably still but after another Senior Lib Mark Oaten was forced to resign after he was 'outed' partaking of the services of rent boys, Hughes came under media spotlight. Of Hughes, Oaten and Huhne, all in the running for leadership pre-Clegg, only he remains in office. And what of poor Ming Campbell who appears to remain unscathed.....although you could say he was a victim of ageism when Hughes was made deputy leader of the Lib Dems, he was conveniently moved sideways to become Business Secretary of the Coalition .....but that's just one 'party' ;)
Edited by Mobson, Feb 6 2013, 03:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caro

I understand all these things you say - we have demerit points too (though I've never heard of anyone here being arrested for using someone else to take the blame). But he is only being charged with perverting the course of justice because a trivial event has happened. Mad4for said his crime wasn't the speeding, as if that was lesser than getting his wife to take the blame. But speeding kills people (so they insist) wheras a little arrangement between husband and wife hadn't caused any problems for ten years. I think three speeding tickets is the worrying thing (though how many wealthy people with good new cars actually cause accidents by speed; it's more like the 17-year-old here driving a stolen car with passengers and breaking all sorts of laws here).

You are all arguing here because you are very intolerant of politicians, but how did you feel five years ago when it was an 82 year man sent to prison for the same offence? I read that and it made me cry. He was merely trying to help his son and I don't understand why the police couldn't have used their discretion here. They talk about making an example but often the example is already strong enough. We had a case here whether a man driving his family parked close to a lake and forgot to put the handbrake on when he got out. The car rolled into the water and one of his children drowned. He was arrested (and very compassionate about his arrest too) and convicted of something on the grounds of providing a warning to others. If anyone driving in similar situations happened to think of this incident, I think the death of the child would provide plenty of disincentive; it didn't need an arrest as well. Some things are accidents and should be treated as such.

(Some years ago my son gained his third speeding points (which are only given here if you are actually pulled up by police, not if a speed camera catches you) - he felt one of them was very unjust. He was leaving for Britain a week later and tried to get the police to take his license off him before he went, but they wouldn't or couldn't. He was away a year and came home with an international license; he says he has been into numerous police stations but they just say his name's not on the record. I asked a lawyer if there was a time limit to how long such a 'crime' would last, but she was mostly bemused at the whole situation. She thought it would have lapsed by now (about 5 years ago). It is all very odd. But I don't suppose my son drives any more dangerously for not having his license taken off him.)

You all sound very harsh and a bit judgemental to me. There but for the grace of god...?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
madfor4

Caro, how would you feel if the 'habitual' speeder, instead of being banned, continued to drive and caused a fatal accident? Would you still be of the opinion that, "a little arrangement between husband and wife hadn't caused any problems"?

I'm not familiar with the 82 year old's case but you get two chances before losing your license and I have little sympathy with those helping such drivers to continue driving....

However, the issue with Huhne is that he continued to plead his innocence and used his position to try and prevent the case coming to court...."There but for the grace of God?" Hardly...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
caissier
Member Avatar
Administrator
Yes, but Caro it has nothing to do with the nature of the original crime. The Jonathan Aitken case was about his claiming his wife paid an hotel bill. He was claiming many, many thousands of pounds in libel from a newspaper. If he'd won it would have been daylight robbery. Similarly Jeffrey Archer lied and did win huge damages but was then found to have lied to the court .... perjured himself. If people were cavalier and just said anything to evade justice the system would be constantly frustrated. If you make a statement and sign it then you are held to that. Lying undermines justice.

It's that serious act of lying to the justice system which is being punished and being deterred. It isn't important what it's about. People are given formal warnings when arrested about any statement they make. It matters a lot what people say in court, and to a jury. Otherwise people could lie, tamper with evidence or pressure witnesses about evidence they give - pervert the process.
Edited by caissier, Feb 6 2013, 10:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caro

Quote:
 
Caro, how would you feel if the 'habitual' speeder, instead of being banned, continued to drive and caused a fatal accident?


But that was my point, Mad4for. It's the speeding that was the problem, not the swapping of who did it. Though I was amazed at how liberally the British treat the speeding laws, roaming over the motorways at much higher speeds that legally allowed. And you know, British road deaths are about one third of NZ. So I think that speed is not so much a killer if the roads are suitable for it. German motorways don't have a speed limit as far as I know and I don't think their accident rates are particularly high. I don't know the situations when Mr Huhne was convicted. (I do find motorway driving terrifying but that is mostly because of how closely people travel behind other cars, taking no notice of two-second rules, which I adhere to quite rigidly and no doubt irritatingly.)

I'm sure Mr Huhne is cavalier and has abused his position, but I think that is very easy to do when you have power.

The punishment should have something to do with the nature of the original crime. I think the most common perversion of justice in NZ would be (mostly) young people pretending someone else is driving in an accident, someone soberer probably. But even in this situation - much worse than speeding and more likely to end in accidents and deaths - if there is no death or bad injury, I don't think the kids do get imprisonned. I may be wrong about that, though. We hear here how many times a drinking driver has been convicted but I haven't noticed them telling us an accident has been caused by someone with several speeding fines, so I am not sure if habitual speeding leads to fatal accidents particularly or not.

(By the way, I am amazed at how few accidents there are on the road. We wring our hands over them here, but I think of these big machines going so fast and passing each so close and the fact that less than one a day is killed by them here seems very surprising indeed. I can think of several episodes of my driving (generally careful and very keen to avoid pain) where miscalculations could have easily resulted in dreadful consequences. And many years ago my son drove his car (with his father in it) under a truck (tricky road for a learner driver and going too fast, though only about 30kph) and they had one or two pinprick scratches; a week or so later three people were killed when their car went under a truck. There's a lot of luck in driving.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caro

PS I very much hope that, if anything bad happens to me, I can be forgiving and not want to blame people. That may not be possible for me, but I hope so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
becky sharp
Member Avatar

Caro
Feb 6 2013, 11:45 PM
I'm sure Mr Huhne is cavalier and has abused his position, but I think that is very easy to do when you have power.

I agree....it must be very easy ...all the more reason not to do it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lurkalot

I bet MPs think rest of us are all plebs! <harharhar>

Sleaze will always remain as part of Mps life and culture!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hugh Mosby-Joaquin
Member Avatar

Caro
Feb 6 2013, 11:45 PM
Quote:
 


The punishment should have something to do with the nature of the original crime.

It would have been, if the idiot Huhne had just accepted what he had done. Even losing his driving licence for three years would hardly have been to him insurmountable, and doubtless justification for more expense claims. Moreover, a fine would have been a mere bagatelle. money-wise. Probably an expense of the job....
However, Huhne went on to compound his criminal career, which shows the tenacity to power and supposed superiority is difficult to shake of for him and many others. The speeding becomes irrelevant in view of the perversion of justice. Debit where it is due....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Caro

Thanks for that clarity, Hugh. I shouldn't really comment on your current affairs since we don't really hear much of them here, though yesterday Matthew Parris and our radio presenter spent quite some time on this. I wonder what people made of it who hadn't heard about it before. Matthew Parris said until recent revelations he had thought perhaps Mr Huhne was truthful, but he seemed very shocked about emails to his son.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lurkalot

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21496566

guilty and all because of 3 points. well no need for the car if having porridge. silly plebs!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
waiting4atickle
Member Avatar

Lurkalot
Mar 7 2013, 06:13 PM
guilty and all because of 3 points.

Usually it's because of 3 pints.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Current Affairs - Politics / Economics · Next Topic »
Add Reply