Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 4 2013, 06:21 PM

Is the change of plea to guilty the ultimate 'own back' on his ex. If he went to trial then she would have been required to give evidence for the prosecution. In the event, as I understand it, then the statement she would make in court could not be used against her in any other court.

So, with a guilty plea she wasn't required to give evidence so now stands to be convicted for perverting the course of justice.

Nice one Chris.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 4 2013, 06:42 PM

What are you talking about?

Posted by: Penelope Feb 4 2013, 06:45 PM

Where is Spider when you need him? Another example of just how stupid and corrupt these people are.

Posted by: Penelope Feb 4 2013, 06:46 PM

Do try and keep up at the back there.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 4 2013, 06:47 PM

Sorry, did I use some big words?

Posted by: Strafin Feb 4 2013, 06:56 PM

No, you just didn't include a link, a title detailing what this has anything to do with, mention any names or even tell us it was a news story. I have since read a paper, so now know.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 4 2013, 07:04 PM

Ah well, I assumed that as it had been in the forefront of the news for months that everybody knew.
Here's a link then

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21320992#

Posted by: Simon Kirby Feb 4 2013, 07:07 PM

If it wasn't for the fact that all Lib Dems are lying sacks of sh1t then Chris Huhne would have something to be ashamed of. As it is, he's just another politician doing what politicians do.

Posted by: gel Feb 4 2013, 07:21 PM

How typical that though he has plead guilty today at court, he's been quite content to draw his MP's salary in time between notice of prosecution and today.

Posted by: On the edge Feb 4 2013, 08:04 PM

Poor Easleigh. Having experienced both Tory and LibDem for MPs, they might be wise to try another party!

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 4 2013, 08:22 PM

True, but innocent until proven guilty.

There was another large sum of money (£17,000) he received after he resigned as minister. He doesn't have to pay that back, it's up to him.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 4 2013, 09:39 PM

While I and most other people knew exactly what this was about, for people who do not follow the news it would have been helpful to include something explanatory in the title.

Posted by: motormad Feb 5 2013, 01:14 AM

What a sad state we live in.
Where there are homeless people (some of whom are not there by their own fault and could be given a home for a period of time).
There are probably violent attacks going on RIGHT NOW at this VERY MOMENT.
There is probably someone being murdered this evening.
Almost certainly somewhere, someone's house is being robbed.

All of these pressing and important issues, there is no time to deal with, but a minor speeding offense that took place OVER 10 YEARS AGO, manages to make national news?
I think this is completely pathetic and I want to walk into the courtroom mid session and tell them all what a bunch of pricks they are and instead of wasting our time and theirs, not to mention our tax payers money, to actually fight some crime, give real criminals real convictions rather than community service and take their family drama (which it is, if you read the BBC article, it's a family spat basically) and shove it because I for one don't care if he was speeding or not. There are bigger things to worry about.

Lots of people do what he did, MPs and regular people. Deal with it and move on to things that ACTUALLY matter.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Feb 5 2013, 01:33 AM

What? in future we should only discuss things you've heard of?

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 5 2013, 02:39 AM

Perjury is a serious (gaolable) offence. There is an allegation of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. If that ain't bad enough, was by an a sitting MP who now could have been deputy prime minister.

Perhaps wannabe boy racers might think about that should any try to get someone to 'take the points' for someone else.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 5 2013, 06:50 AM

No, but why not mention he subject matter in the op rather than leave people guessing?

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Feb 5 2013, 08:37 AM

I guess there are those up on current events and those who drag behind.

Posted by: motormad Feb 5 2013, 08:59 AM

Over what, 3 points and a £60 fine? What a serious offense that is! If he had 9 points already he would have probably gotten let off without a ban because he would claim hardship from loss of license.



Is that some sort of dig? In this case it was a "wannabe man racer".

Posted by: JeffG Feb 5 2013, 10:28 AM

I suggested in post #12 that it would have been a sensible thing to do, but in fairness, I think you were the only one guessing.

Posted by: lordtup Feb 5 2013, 11:02 AM

Some members on here seem to be able to add the necessary link to the relevant story with no problem at all . Some like me have no idea how it achieved even though I have been told .

I tend to take the view that everyone is up to speed on the latest news and therefore are fully aware of what any contributor is on about.

Even me !

Posted by: motormad Feb 5 2013, 11:16 AM

If you are bringing a topic to the forefront of discussion you should supply the relevant main article in your opening post. It's only

a) polite
b.) reasonable.

Posted by: biggus_richus Feb 5 2013, 11:40 AM

I think he did already have nine points.

But it's really not about the speeding fine any more.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Feb 5 2013, 11:45 AM

Have to say that I knew what he was going on about. But perhaps for the more 'special needs' amongst us, extra allowances have to be made.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 5 2013, 11:51 AM

It would also help if people like you would also do a bit of research before firing from the hip.

In an attempt to avoid losing his licence, he got his missus to take the rap. He then spent 2 years denying that he had, and then, only when it become clear he couldn't wriggle out of it, he changed his plea, costing everyone a lot of money in the process.

Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is a gaolable offence, meaning it is a serious offence. Perhaps you don't mind MPs breaking the law and lying in such a way, but this is a person who we might entrust to represent us in a democratic system.

Posted by: lordtup Feb 5 2013, 01:34 PM

I am not entirely sure why we get so irate over the nefarious activities of the " honourable " members of Parliament .
The dust has hardly settled over the expenses scandal and further misdemeanour's comes to light .

Maybe if we shot a few it would encourage a more responsible attitude.

Posted by: motormad Feb 5 2013, 01:38 PM

I have done the research and read the articles.
The story only came to light AFTER an affair and which point the wife decided that as some sort of payback, the speeding thing should now come on. All MPs lie and I think there are bigger fish to fry.
"Perverting" course of justice is one thing for like a murder but for a minor traffic offense, bigger things to worry about in the world.

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 5 2013, 03:48 PM

Not all MPs lie, but to treat contempt of court in such a laissez-faire manner would only seek to make it more likely that they would. There shouldn't be a different law for MPs as there is for 'plebs'.

Posted by: motormad Feb 5 2013, 04:03 PM

I agree Andy.
I'm just saying that shifting points around in a relationship is something that a lot of people do and to me personally not a major issue.

The fact the MP did it or not is irrelevant, everyone lies, rightly or wrongly. We expect the members in the government to be honest however we have found that consistently to not be true.

This is a bitchy family drama with a pissed-off wife seeking revenge.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 5 2013, 04:30 PM

Just to be clear, there has been no contempt of court. The charge is perverting the course of justice. Both he and his ex missus have been charged so she shot herself in the foot by trying to, and quite succesfuly, ruining the man and his career. She now has to face the same charge as she was considered to be as guilty as he was of the perveting charge. Let's see now, what has she acheived by her vindictive action. She has ruined him and he is now unemployed. Any money for maintenance has gone for a ball of chalk. She may join him in prison if the full weight of the law falls upon the two of them. But she may feel good because she has got her own back on him and his new squeeze. Woman scorned and all that......

Whilst we may feel that taking someone elses points for speeding is a minor infringement, it actually isn't. The whole point of a driving licence is fitness to drive. A person who is a consistent speeder or feels that other points offences don't matter is wrong. The safety of other road users depend on the majority of us driving within the rules and points give an offender an opportunity to modify his/her road behaviour.

Speeding is a fairly minor traffic offence and most of us are guilty at some time, hence the first offence will normally give the offender the opportunity to go on a speed awareness course without points or a fine. But, perverting the course of justice is a criminal offence and will result, in the event of a guilty plea or conviction, a criminal record and normally carries a prison sentence. Obviously as an MP, this is a serious charge and if he thought it through at the time, he would have known that he was risking all to not get a few points on his licence and possibly lose it as he had already accrued nine points. Not a criminal offence but it would have cost him money and judging by the way the MP's laundered their expenses just goes to prove that there is or was an inbuilt financial greed and a lack of responsibility.

Posted by: motormad Feb 5 2013, 05:02 PM

It's not though is it?
There are plenty of people who have clean driving licenses who do not speed and who are a COMPLETE DANGER to the population at large.
Likewise I'm sure Lewis Hamilton has his fair share of points and is a far less likely to have an accident than any of us.

My Granddad is the worlds absolute worse driver, he crashed into the back of a bus and said "didn't see it".
I refuse to go on the car with him. Yet he pays pennies for his insurance (or at least paid )

The driving test is driving around Newbury for 25 minutes and then parking at the test centre, it's not hard.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 5 2013, 05:39 PM

There are always exceptions to any rule but generally, people who have clean licences are competent drivers and if they are not, then the probability is that they will generate points and if they get enough then they will lose it.

I do a lot of miles and don't see as many dangerous drivers as you appear to. My issue, to be honest, is with drivers who have probably only held a licence for a couple of years driving like maniacs and creating mayhem because of their aggression and need for speed. Sadly the statistics on road accidents and fatalities bear this out.

You are duty bound to argue this point so I will leave you to it.

Oh as you need links, here's one for you.

http://www.admiral.com/press-releases/106/shocking-record-of-young-drivers-revealed/

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 5 2013, 06:43 PM

I think the motive of the woman is immaterial, and her case is now sub judice I believe. He has brought this on by himself. Had he got a ban, he would have been embarrassed, but would still have a careerer. He has shown a contemptuous attitude towards the law. Whether others do it is besides the point.

The lesson is, if you want to be an MP, you can expect to lead an extraordinary life and your conduct, however natural, will come under spot light. If you have affairs or try to duck the law, you will be found out.

Posted by: JeffG Feb 5 2013, 07:11 PM

People with clean driving licences demonstrate that they are paying full attention because they see the police car in their rear view mirror. That is why they are safe.

Posted by: newres Feb 5 2013, 07:22 PM

That doesn't always work though because police officers have a habit of saying they were following someone when actually they weren't, but that's besides the point.

I don't get the bit about not admitting the offence and the cost to the public purse. So what? That is his right. Both sides use processes and procedures. That is our system.

Neither of the parties come out well, although in my opinion neither should go to prison. However, if one does, both should.

Posted by: Strafin Feb 5 2013, 07:35 PM

I spend about an hour a day on the internet looking at news and a few other things of interest, and I used to like giving this forum a bit of that time. The forum used to be quite good but now has about ten regular posters, who think they own it and no new members or different points of view. Imagine for a second that you have not ever been on this forum and read the OP again. It is not at all obvious what it relates to, but if you question you get called "special needs". Imagine that you might have a special needs son or daughter for starters and think about how offensive that could be. Secondly ask yourself how likely you are to contribute to a thread, (again with no link, no summary of the story and no relevent title), when if you ask a question you are ridiculed. You lot who have all the time in the world to go over everything that is happening and think you know everything wont have too much of a problem, but it's not always like that for everybody.

Posted by: Exhausted Feb 5 2013, 08:41 PM

......and you missed the Chris Huhne story. When I started the thread I added an explanation, "the speeding ticket". so I thought that it would have been on everybody's list of what's going on. If you didn't understand the thread, I apologise for that but in truth, you could have either waited until it became clearer to you or just ignored it. I don't think there is anyone that claims ownership to the Newbury Today Forum and as you are one of the more prolific posters, I suspect you know that. Apart from the irritating habit of the spellcheckers to jump in at the slightest excuse, it's a quite friendly area for keyboard banter and unlike the pub discussion that takes a wrong direction you are not likely to get a punch on the nose.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 5 2013, 09:30 PM

The whole story is a wonderful reinforcement of the strong bonds that exist within families.

On one hand we have the sweet Mrs H and on the other we have their offspring Peter Huhne also showing his undying love for his father...



"I HATE you!! You make me sick......."


Much as I'm finding this implosion amusing, I can't help but think of the future.

If I were CH, I would take what's coming on the chin, and do my few months in pokey. Make sure that my debt to society is paid, and that I am on the straight and narrow. I'd count the cost of this misadventure, subtract it from my net worth of 3.5M quid, and crack on.

I'd begin cracking on by:

1. Find a new squeeze. Carina's just not up to much. Possibly ask a friend with 20/20 eyesight to help.
2. Crucify the evil *****-from-Hades ex-wife who couldn't keep her gob shut.
3. Crucify the gobby little sod that calls himself my son. Oxford? Cambridge? Oh no, sunshine. It's McD's or BK for you pal. When you can show some contrition for speaking to me like that, then we'll talk. Until then, sayonara...........

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 5 2013, 09:55 PM

I respect much more the apparent dignified and contrite approach adopted by Jonathan Aitken than the rather vengeful method you appear to advocate. Surely text message exchanges cannot give the full story.

Posted by: spartacus Feb 5 2013, 10:27 PM

Well Mr Aitkin's ex-wife didn't seem to have quite the same 'woman scorned fury' about her and perhaps he was therefore less inclined to feel the need to resort to revenge. His two daughters also were supportive despite his 'indiscretions'.

It seems Mr Huhne hasn't been quite so fortunate in the family loyalty stakes

Posted by: On the edge Feb 5 2013, 10:40 PM

As you've described would make cracking TV; hope you get the film rights!

Posted by: Andy Capp Feb 5 2013, 11:00 PM

The point I make is that contrition is best demonstrated without vengeance.