Huhne ex to be re-tried
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huhne ex to be re-tried
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#13
I was wondering why they have to have a full expensive trial anyway.
Surely if she took the points for him there must be incontrovertible evidence in the records so she can't deny that she was guilty of taking part in his scam.
Les
Surely if she took the points for him there must be incontrovertible evidence in the records so she can't deny that she was guilty of taking part in his scam.
Les
#14
I would have thought that this defence would shift the onus of proof to the defence legal team - but this is not the case under British law.IMO
Last edited by cster; 22 February 2013 at 01:10 AM.
#15
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another complete waste of money. In the grand scheme of things, this case is insignificant. And as for the jury issue, what a joke. Who cares if they were complete idiots. Surely if they have a re-trial because of that very reason, it makes a mockery of the whole system? If the jury are deemed to be incompetent, the judge should be able to give a ruling rather than costing the tax payer more money?
#17
Scooby Regular
The trial is about "Perverting the course of Justice"
it is not insignificant, which is why it carries a maximum life tarrif
if the view is that it is some sort of side show, then why do we bother having a democracy based on the rule of law at all.
why not let the powers that be (inc Vicky Price and Chris Huhne) together with the rest of the "great and good" make it up as they go along.
fvck me people are thick
it is not insignificant, which is why it carries a maximum life tarrif
if the view is that it is some sort of side show, then why do we bother having a democracy based on the rule of law at all.
why not let the powers that be (inc Vicky Price and Chris Huhne) together with the rest of the "great and good" make it up as they go along.
fvck me people are thick
#18
Scooby Regular
sorry there is no argument
the case is about "Perverting the course of Justice"
and if people do not understand the ramifications of not prosecuting that, and hence why it carries a maximum life tariff
then they are thick – sorry harsh on people without the cognitive skills to work it out , but i am afraid true
the case is about "Perverting the course of Justice"
and if people do not understand the ramifications of not prosecuting that, and hence why it carries a maximum life tariff
then they are thick – sorry harsh on people without the cognitive skills to work it out , but i am afraid true
#19
The trial is about "Perverting the course of Justice"
it is not insignificant, which is why it carries a maximum life tarrif
if the view is that it is some sort of side show, then why do we bother having a democracy based on the rule of law at all.
why not let the powers that be (inc Vicky Price and Chris Huhne) together with the rest of the "great and good" make it up as they go along.
fvck me people are thick
it is not insignificant, which is why it carries a maximum life tarrif
if the view is that it is some sort of side show, then why do we bother having a democracy based on the rule of law at all.
why not let the powers that be (inc Vicky Price and Chris Huhne) together with the rest of the "great and good" make it up as they go along.
fvck me people are thick
1) how seriously the law takes itself and
2) about some demented woman manipulating the legal system to get at her ex-husband over a matter as serious as a camera taking a photo of a car exceeding the speed limit along the M11 in the middle of the night, causing no danger to any one.
If the case was a matter of someone trying to shield a murderer from justice, I might be more inclined to take your view but I shudder to think how much this farce has cost (and will cost) the taxpayer. Maybe seven figures?
Just because someone sees things differently to you - that doesn't mean they are they fvcking thick surely?
Maybe we should get rid of the jury system and put you in there instead
#21
Scooby Regular
could / will?
could? - yes because that is the maximum life tariff
jeez this is hard work
will?, well what do you think - I think unlikely (there you go I have stuck my neck out)
but I think Chris Huhne will get a custodial sentence (and have said so repeatedly)
and maybe Vicky Price too if found guilty
could? - yes because that is the maximum life tariff
jeez this is hard work
will?, well what do you think - I think unlikely (there you go I have stuck my neck out)
but I think Chris Huhne will get a custodial sentence (and have said so repeatedly)
and maybe Vicky Price too if found guilty
#22
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She took points for him, she didn't murder anyone. I'm sure there are many people out there (including some on here) that have done the same. Should they all be banged up for life? And yet kiddy fiddlers get a few years?
If she had perverted the course of justice in a murder case, then of course this should be taken seriously.
The irony here is that although this case is deemed as a very serious one, the system used to attempt to gain a verdict has failed. I actually found their questions about her having to obey her husband due to their wedding vows was brilliant.
In the end, there is no case here is there? She took points, she admitted to taking points. If it were any other member of the public, they would be handed a suspended sentance and fine.
But because of who they are (which really shouldn't make a difference), we have another media frenzy.
If she had perverted the course of justice in a murder case, then of course this should be taken seriously.
The irony here is that although this case is deemed as a very serious one, the system used to attempt to gain a verdict has failed. I actually found their questions about her having to obey her husband due to their wedding vows was brilliant.
In the end, there is no case here is there? She took points, she admitted to taking points. If it were any other member of the public, they would be handed a suspended sentance and fine.
But because of who they are (which really shouldn't make a difference), we have another media frenzy.
#26
She took points for him, she didn't murder anyone. I'm sure there are many people out there (including some on here) that have done the same. Should they all be banged up for life? And yet kiddy fiddlers get a few years?
If she had perverted the course of justice in a murder case, then of course this should be taken seriously.
The irony here is that although this case is deemed as a very serious one, the system used to attempt to gain a verdict has failed. I actually found their questions about her having to obey her husband due to their wedding vows was brilliant.
In the end, there is no case here is there? She took points, she admitted to taking points. If it were any other member of the public, they would be handed a suspended sentance and fine.
But because of who they are (which really shouldn't make a difference), we have another media frenzy.
If she had perverted the course of justice in a murder case, then of course this should be taken seriously.
The irony here is that although this case is deemed as a very serious one, the system used to attempt to gain a verdict has failed. I actually found their questions about her having to obey her husband due to their wedding vows was brilliant.
In the end, there is no case here is there? She took points, she admitted to taking points. If it were any other member of the public, they would be handed a suspended sentance and fine.
But because of who they are (which really shouldn't make a difference), we have another media frenzy.
TBF, if these people were ordinary members of the public, this case would never have come about. Her vindictive actions were only made worthwhile by the standing of her husbands political career and the harm that this would cause to him.
The fact that she was happy to also cause a lot of psychological damage to her children by her actions and testimony seems a bit odd. I mean telling the public that the father of their youngest child wanted him aborted - that is an absolute classic! What is going on in her mind here? It certainly calls into question her credibility as a witness IMO. I am a little surprised the prosecution did not attack her on this front, but I guess they must have thought it a bad idea. It also seems a shame that Mr Huhne could not be bought before the court to confirm or refute matters arising from her testimony.
As for the question of the wedding vows, do you think that maybe there were a couple of thick alpha males types of traditional cultural belief on the jury who don't quite get the idea of a woman having a mind of their own?
Last edited by cster; 22 February 2013 at 09:50 AM.
#28
Scooby Regular
are seriously suggesting that if the police had evidence that you or I had perverted the course of justice they would do nothing
#29
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.
#30
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a waste of money. Give her a fine and a bit of community service and be done with it. She's an excellent economist by all accounts, and we need as many of them as we can get right now!