Huhne ex to be re-tried
22 February 2013, 03:16 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
If you have read my post, you will see the reason I give as to why this case came to the attention of the police is that " Her vindictive actions were only made worthwhile by the standing of her husbands political career and the harm that this would cause to him."
ie if he didn't have so much to lose, she wouldn't have bothered to go to the police and there would be no prosecution of the non-existent case.
I hope I have explained this in a simple enough manner, such that you are able to understand.
I notice you seem to like calling other people stupid - but must confess that I am at a loss as to why this is so.
ie if he didn't have so much to lose, she wouldn't have bothered to go to the police and there would be no prosecution of the non-existent case.
I hope I have explained this in a simple enough manner, such that you are able to understand.
I notice you seem to like calling other people stupid - but must confess that I am at a loss as to why this is so.
and the law takes "perverting the course of justice" very seriously
that is my point -- people on this thread seem to think it is a "waste of time" you seem to agree with them
the point about "well it is not murder", is frankly laughable - but you seem to think it is a fair point!!! - and then state
"TBF, if these people were ordinary members of the public, this case would never have come about."
they are being prosecuted for "perverting the course of justice" it is the same law that sent down Jeffery Archer and Jonathan Aitken
sorry, If I have got it wrong, and you do actually agree that "perverting the course of justice" is a serious offence and deserves to be prosecuted to the full extend of the law (whoever is being charged with it) then I absoloutly apologise
if not well I have made my view pretty clear
22 February 2013, 05:57 PM
#33
Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle.
I imagine the sentencing guidelines will specifically state that the seriousness of any particular case must have a significant bearing on any sentence.
This case will be at one end of the scale (he paid the fine and his Missus took the points), a policeman lying under oath to a court in order to fit up a defendant would be somewhere further along (innocent person goes to jail due to corruption of public official) and then someone perverting the course of justice to knowingly protect a murderer who went on to commit several more murders (people ended up dead) would be at the other end of the scale.
"An eye for an eye" as we know means that punishment should be proportional to the crime and I gather (as a non-jurist) that this is why the range of punishments that can be meted out is up to a life sentence.
I imagine the sentencing guidelines will specifically state that the seriousness of any particular case must have a significant bearing on any sentence.
This case will be at one end of the scale (he paid the fine and his Missus took the points), a policeman lying under oath to a court in order to fit up a defendant would be somewhere further along (innocent person goes to jail due to corruption of public official) and then someone perverting the course of justice to knowingly protect a murderer who went on to commit several more murders (people ended up dead) would be at the other end of the scale.
"An eye for an eye" as we know means that punishment should be proportional to the crime and I gather (as a non-jurist) that this is why the range of punishments that can be meted out is up to a life sentence.
22 February 2013, 06:50 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
exactly, which is why I think it his highly probable he will get a custodial sentence
and also why he will not get life
the basic point is that the law does not treat perverting the course of justice lightly
nor should it -- it attacks at the very fabric of a law abiding democracy
the fact that posters on here do not understand that simple basic point and see it as some celebrity side show, just demonstrates their ignorance
and also why he will not get life
the basic point is that the law does not treat perverting the course of justice lightly
nor should it -- it attacks at the very fabric of a law abiding democracy
the fact that posters on here do not understand that simple basic point and see it as some celebrity side show, just demonstrates their ignorance
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 22 February 2013 at 06:51 PM.
22 February 2013, 07:56 PM
#35
Yes, of course the law takes itself seriously.
As an aside (and this is of course hypothetical), in the case that Ms Pryce is found guilty, how do you think her punishment should compare to that of her ex-husband.
In your determination, I want you to put aside the fact that C. Huhne is a complete dick.
As an aside (and this is of course hypothetical), in the case that Ms Pryce is found guilty, how do you think her punishment should compare to that of her ex-husband.
In your determination, I want you to put aside the fact that C. Huhne is a complete dick.
22 February 2013, 08:26 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
you say that like it is a bad thing,
every "profession” has a tendency to do that -- but the concept of the law transcends the legal profession,
but it is still an unsurprising revelation that the legal profession are going to defend that concept - otherwise why bother
people are equal before the law – not the legal profession – yes?
I would want, and expect her to get broadly the same sentence has dick head Huhne
every "profession” has a tendency to do that -- but the concept of the law transcends the legal profession,
but it is still an unsurprising revelation that the legal profession are going to defend that concept - otherwise why bother
people are equal before the law – not the legal profession – yes?
I would want, and expect her to get broadly the same sentence has dick head Huhne
23 February 2013, 08:49 AM
#38
She also tells us that she loves her children (when she is not aborting them).
This should go in her favour.
On the other hand (since she has been found guilty in our hypothetical construct), she is a bit of a liar under oath.
She is still a "munter" and has manipulated the legal system to her own vindictive ends.
On reflection, I am with you on this one Shaun.
23 February 2013, 09:17 AM
#39
I just say it as a self evident fact that does not require any further discourse - any value attached to it is purely in the skew of the reader.
As you go on to say -
I think that if Richard Dawkins were to write a book called the "Democracy Delusion", he would certainly have a chapter under this heading and might also mention it in his dogma list.
It is a nice thought that all men a born equal and so-on, but let us not forget that this was in the pre-amble of a constitution in a country where one could legally be born into slavery.
Four legs good - two legs better as they say.
I personally don't believe that people paying fines and getting someone else to take their points is going to lead to the end of democracy in this country - but I am happy to admit that this is just my opinion and as such, that I might be wrong on this one.
As you go on to say -
I think that if Richard Dawkins were to write a book called the "Democracy Delusion", he would certainly have a chapter under this heading and might also mention it in his dogma list.
It is a nice thought that all men a born equal and so-on, but let us not forget that this was in the pre-amble of a constitution in a country where one could legally be born into slavery.
Four legs good - two legs better as they say.
I personally don't believe that people paying fines and getting someone else to take their points is going to lead to the end of democracy in this country - but I am happy to admit that this is just my opinion and as such, that I might be wrong on this one.
Last edited by cster; 23 February 2013 at 09:27 AM.
23 February 2013, 09:36 AM
#40
ps This kind of thing is taken very seriously in the Antipodes.
In Australia the even have laws against Huhne-ing, although they have changed the spelling of his name in order to protect the guilty!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoon
In Australia the even have laws against Huhne-ing, although they have changed the spelling of his name in order to protect the guilty!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoon
23 February 2013, 09:53 AM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite simply, there was enough evidence to bring this to court, so it must continue in court until she is either found guilty or not, whatever the offence.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
22BUK
Non Scooby Related
175
12 June 2013 08:22 PM
hutton_d
Non Scooby Related
2
21 December 2010 11:00 AM