Chris Huhne charged
#31
He is a real prat if he was trying to get out of a conviction like that. If you are in public life you have to be doubly careful in your behaviour since you are regarded as being in a position to set an example to others, and to carry out a completely illegal act and to involve his wife, and then to lie about it means that he would lose all respect and that his ministerial career would be over. Just not worth the candle.
We shall have to see how the court case goes of course.
Les
We shall have to see how the court case goes of course.
Les
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
#35
Just because she has pleaded guilty, it does not mean he is.
As a spurned wife, the jury may decide her testimony is not of the required standard to convict Mr Huhne.
Just thinking aloud, but such a scenario would certainly define "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
And perhaps having these thoughts defines misogyny.
#36
He is a real prat if he was trying to get out of a conviction like that. If you are in public life you have to be doubly careful in your behaviour since you are regarded as being in a position to set an example to others, and to carry out a completely illegal act and to involve his wife, and then to lie about it means that he would lose all respect and that his ministerial career would be over. Just not worth the candle.
We shall have to see how the court case goes of course.
Les
We shall have to see how the court case goes of course.
Les
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good guess would be that they have half a dozen people who were chatting to his wife at a party. Or may be the guy* who was ******** her at the time
dl
*Clegg?
Last edited by David Lock; 05 February 2012 at 12:51 PM.
#40
Les
#41
I think if the Crown can prove she was not present they can only charge her with PTCOJ etc based just upon that, so they must have evidence of collusion etc with which to charge him too.
#42
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
They send you a nasty letter demanding you for a name. By law you have to put a name down. So they did. The system is stupid as it allows this practice to happen every day someone gets a NIP without supporting evidence to proove or identify who was driving.
The problem is the law assumes everyone knows who is driving their car at any given point in time. And its never that clear cut (especially if a car was caught comitting a driving offence with covert or non-indicative equipment , like SPECs so the driver would be unware of being caught ).
We had a NIP for one of our pool cars, problem is we had no idea who was driving and there was no evidence to aid us to identify who it was. Under law the directors are responsible for not logging who is driving. But they only want to take to task ONE of the directors. Fine.....so we let my Gran (who was a main director) deal with it and pay the fine....she has no driver's licence! Justice is served
This Huhne case will fall fat on its face if these two do one simple thing....forget who was driving the car at the time of the offence, so the name on the NIP was put down based on a probable assumption. Be it intentional or not, there is no law demanding private car owners to log who where and when someone is driving their car. If there is no evidence to identify the driver, then there is no case to answer.
Married couple where neither knew who actually comitted the offence and the outcome of that was she decides to put her name on the NIP, only later to regret it.
A farce and waste of public money......all to just sell some more newspapers
Last edited by ALi-B; 05 February 2012 at 02:02 PM.
#43
I would imagine the Crown have that covered based on some other evidence such as alleged recordings.
#44
Scooby Regular
IMO it shows up the farce that is the NIP system.
They send you a nasty letter demanding you for a name. By law you have to put a name down. So they did. The system is stupid as it allows this practice to happen every day someone gets a NIP without supporting evidence to proove or identify who was driving.
The problem is the law assumes everyone knows who is driving their car at any given point in time. And its never that clear cut (especially if a car was caught comitting a driving offence with covert or non-indicative equipment , like SPECs so the driver would be unware of being caught ).
We had a NIP for one of our pool cars, problem is we had no idea who was driving and there was no evidence to aid us to identify who it was. Under law the directors are responsible for not logging who is driving. But they only want to take to task ONE of the directors. Fine.....so we let my Gran (who was a main director) deal with it and pay the fine....she has no driver's licence! Justice is served
This Huhne case will fall fat on its face if these two do one simple thing....forget who was driving the car at the time of the offence, so the name on the NIP was put down based on a probable assumption. Be it intentional or not, there is no law demanding private car owners to log who where and when someone is driving their car. If there is no evidence to identify the driver, then there is no case to answer.
Married couple where neither knew who actually comitted the offence and the outcome of that was she decides to put her name on the NIP, only later to regret it.
A farce and waste of public money......all to just sell some more newspapers
They send you a nasty letter demanding you for a name. By law you have to put a name down. So they did. The system is stupid as it allows this practice to happen every day someone gets a NIP without supporting evidence to proove or identify who was driving.
The problem is the law assumes everyone knows who is driving their car at any given point in time. And its never that clear cut (especially if a car was caught comitting a driving offence with covert or non-indicative equipment , like SPECs so the driver would be unware of being caught ).
We had a NIP for one of our pool cars, problem is we had no idea who was driving and there was no evidence to aid us to identify who it was. Under law the directors are responsible for not logging who is driving. But they only want to take to task ONE of the directors. Fine.....so we let my Gran (who was a main director) deal with it and pay the fine....she has no driver's licence! Justice is served
This Huhne case will fall fat on its face if these two do one simple thing....forget who was driving the car at the time of the offence, so the name on the NIP was put down based on a probable assumption. Be it intentional or not, there is no law demanding private car owners to log who where and when someone is driving their car. If there is no evidence to identify the driver, then there is no case to answer.
Married couple where neither knew who actually comitted the offence and the outcome of that was she decides to put her name on the NIP, only later to regret it.
A farce and waste of public money......all to just sell some more newspapers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-speeding.html
#45
It seems to me that if she is found guilty of taking the points for him, the source of the points must be made known in court so therefore he must have been complicit in the points going on her licence rather than his.
I reckon that makes him guilty!
Les
I reckon that makes him guilty!
Les
#46
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMO it shows up the farce that is the NIP system.
They send you a nasty letter demanding you for a name. By law you have to put a name down. So they did. The system is stupid as it allows this practice to happen every day someone gets a NIP without supporting evidence to proove or identify who was driving.
The problem is the law assumes everyone knows who is driving their car at any given point in time. And its never that clear cut (especially if a car was caught comitting a driving offence with covert or non-indicative equipment , like SPECs so the driver would be unware of being caught ).
We had a NIP for one of our pool cars, problem is we had no idea who was driving and there was no evidence to aid us to identify who it was. Under law the directors are responsible for not logging who is driving. But they only want to take to task ONE of the directors. Fine.....so we let my Gran (who was a main director) deal with it and pay the fine....she has no driver's licence! Justice is served
This Huhne case will fall fat on its face if these two do one simple thing....forget who was driving the car at the time of the offence, so the name on the NIP was put down based on a probable assumption. Be it intentional or not, there is no law demanding private car owners to log who where and when someone is driving their car. If there is no evidence to identify the driver, then there is no case to answer.
Married couple where neither knew who actually comitted the offence and the outcome of that was she decides to put her name on the NIP, only later to regret it.
A farce and waste of public money......all to just sell some more newspapers
They send you a nasty letter demanding you for a name. By law you have to put a name down. So they did. The system is stupid as it allows this practice to happen every day someone gets a NIP without supporting evidence to proove or identify who was driving.
The problem is the law assumes everyone knows who is driving their car at any given point in time. And its never that clear cut (especially if a car was caught comitting a driving offence with covert or non-indicative equipment , like SPECs so the driver would be unware of being caught ).
We had a NIP for one of our pool cars, problem is we had no idea who was driving and there was no evidence to aid us to identify who it was. Under law the directors are responsible for not logging who is driving. But they only want to take to task ONE of the directors. Fine.....so we let my Gran (who was a main director) deal with it and pay the fine....she has no driver's licence! Justice is served
This Huhne case will fall fat on its face if these two do one simple thing....forget who was driving the car at the time of the offence, so the name on the NIP was put down based on a probable assumption. Be it intentional or not, there is no law demanding private car owners to log who where and when someone is driving their car. If there is no evidence to identify the driver, then there is no case to answer.
Married couple where neither knew who actually comitted the offence and the outcome of that was she decides to put her name on the NIP, only later to regret it.
A farce and waste of public money......all to just sell some more newspapers
He has been charged with perverting the course of justice. This differs to the Hamiltons case as Christine Hamilton never claimed to know who was driving and hence refused to fill in the Section 172 form as she would be perjuring herself to do so.
Huhne did fill in the Section 172 form in his wife's name and now it appears thet she wasn't driving, he was and he knew full well he was.
This case is about that not about the speeding offcence itself! If it's true he's an idiot!
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or ...
He lent the car to his wife.
She lent it to her lover who triggered a GATSO.
Huhne reasonably filled out the NIP in his wife's name. She took the points so as not to reveal her affair.
Now she is implicating him in revenge.
None of the above is evidence, but the case may not be black and white. Just because she wasn't driving, doesn't mean he was.
She lent it to her lover who triggered a GATSO.
Huhne reasonably filled out the NIP in his wife's name. She took the points so as not to reveal her affair.
Now she is implicating him in revenge.
None of the above is evidence, but the case may not be black and white. Just because she wasn't driving, doesn't mean he was.
#48
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: use the Marauder's Map to find out.
Posts: 2,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This Huhne case will fall fat on its face if these two do one simple thing....forget who was driving the car at the time of the offence, so the name on the NIP was put down based on a probable assumption. Be it intentional or not, there is no law demanding private car owners to log who where and when someone is driving their car. If there is no evidence to identify the driver, then there is no case to answer.
Don't know if the direction of travel also suggests which journey would have been more likely (eg. if they live around Epping and the car was clocked southbound on the M11 that would make it much more likely that he was driving).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post