If he gets less than 12 mths in prison he can remain and MP...more than 12mths there will be an election.
Interesting. I wonder if he will hold surgeries in the prison visiting room?
I do think this is a serious charge, given that it goes to the heart of his integrity.
|
given that it goes to the heart of his integrity.
Pfft! what integrity?!
He's a liar, a philanderer and a hypocrite. Qualities which undoubtably proved invaluable whilst climbing the greasy westminister pole.
|
Now resigned, which suggests the next time he is due in Court he will need to take his toothbrush.
Agree with unthrottled. Another MP who has no idea of morals or responsibilties. Pity we can't claim back all the expnses he's had whilst living the lie. No doubt he's been using his time to maximise his returns from the public purse.
|
|
He's been told to be 'under no illusions' as to sentence. Max for offence is life but realistically he's looking at around 12months. Presumably he'll only serve 6 with rest on a tag.
As he's a multi millionaire loss of his seat and period inside won't affect his future lifestyle overmuch.
Wonder id he's now turning QE and will stick the boot into his ex?
|
|
He's handled himself terribly during this whole fiasco. A straight admission when the allegations first came to light might not have saved his career, but quite possibly a jail sentence, and a shred of dignity.
Now he's about to find out who his true friends are.
|
Now he's about to find out who his true friends are.
He will get lots of new friends where he is heading. But he must remember not to bend down to pick up the soap in the showers.
|
|
|
He's handled himself terribly during this whole fiasco. A straight admission when the allegations first came to light might not have saved his career, but quite possibly a jail sentence, and a shred of dignity.
The offence was roughly 10 years ago, the allegations were fairly recent, who can prove what they were doing 1 year ago, never mind 10? I assume Mrs Huhne had proof, and it was presented prior to the trial, as I think disclosure is required under law. Why would she have proof? She either made sure at the time that she could prove the date, or she subsequently did a lot of work to find proof. Otherwise it is the word of an angry betrayed wife versus the defendant, and I would have thought he would have got off i.e. she had a motive to lie.
Now he's about to find out who his true friends are.
|
|
After a "guilty" plea,the sentence is halved!!
|
|
I don't think it's as simple as that.
I think you get a discount for pleading guilty, up to a certain amount (one third I think). The amount of discount depends on how early you plead guilty, with the maximum being for pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity. But in this case, the plea was after some time, so I don't think he'll get the max discount.
|
|
As others say, he's not going to get much discount for guilty. Voided trials like this are the bane of the Crown Court. Defendant pleads not guilty and trys various processes to get proceedings struck out. Pleads not guilty again at introductory hearings.
Judge, jury and witnesses all lined up and ready for trial. Defendant's counsel then says 'scuse me but could the indictment be read again' and Defendant says 'Guilty'. Lot of time and public money wasted. A point I think the judge will make when sentencing.
So far as facts are concerned my understanding is that the former Mrs H shopped him after he ran off with Ms Trimingham.
Heaven has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turned, Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorned...."
Events concern a drive home from Stansted. Given that (a) his travel as MP/MEP is likley to be a matter of record and (b) she's, for example, able to prove she was many miles away from locus at or close to the time (say at a public meeting in Central London) then 'where were you ten years ago' isn't the same problem as it might be for me.
As I understand it she admits the facts but claims marital co-ercion.
If he now goes in the box and gives evidence of different facts/motivation she might be on a sticky one too.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 04/02/2013 at 16:11
|
|
Congratulations on getting the Congreve quote correct Bromptonaut - must be one of the most frequently misquotes in the English Language.
Unfortunately one must assume that Mr Hune will retain his pension and rightds to severence pay?
As he is clearly dishonourable (and hasa broken the oath) one must assume that he will leave The Privy Council?
|
Congratulations on getting the Congreve quote correct Bromptonaut - must be one of the most frequently misquotes in the English Language.
No credit to me. I lifted it from NoFM2R/Mark once of this parish on a quote in the 'other place' we're not allowed to mention here.
|
|
|
She was giving a lecture in Central London @ the said date/time - hundreds of witnesses.
Camera time in known.
Proving guilt was not thought to be difficult
|
|
|
|
Disagree about your memory point, Leif
He committed the offence with 9 points sitting on his licence already, and a probable ban for the speeding offence. Personally, even after 10 years, I'd have some recollection that my license to drive was hanging by a thread, so I'd deliberately cheated the system and asked my wife to commit a form of administrative perjury.
I dont think any jury would've bought the 'I forgot' plea in the face of those circumstances.
|
|
Meanwhile dozens of MPs who fraudulently claimed expenses walk free to live lives of luxury off the back of the taxpayer- what's is the worst crime – documented, proven theft or avoiding points on your license? Perhaps he can manufacture a nervous breakdown and avoid court? Or does that only work for female Labour MPs?
|
|
|
|
Delete double post
Edited by SteveLee on 04/02/2013 at 18:47
|
|
Oh for God's sake - it's not exactly the crime of the century, it's only a speeding offence - in most other countries exceeding the speed limit is classed as a civil offence - not in the UK, it's talked up as if the driver who commits the heinous crime of daring to drive faster than the limit which is imposed by a council official who does not have to have a driving licence is some kind of big-time criminal act.
Meanwhile, the really major-league criminals are laughing all the way to the bank (which they work for).
|
|
It's not the speeding offence that's really the issue; it's the fact that he lied and dumped the points onto his wife.
It's not like he'll be hard up without the MP job.
|
|
You totally missed the point. The speeding offence is NOT the isue. The issue is perverting the course of justice. In fact this is a lesser charge as they could have gone with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. These are VERY serious charges. The state takes a dim view of people lying on sworn statements. See they don't like the competition!
Edited by Ethan Edwards on 04/02/2013 at 20:39
|
|
Lets get this into proportion…….Every day thugs who have left someone battered and bleeding on the pavement are let off with a punitive sentence of community work or being tagged.
I recall Geoffrey Archer getting 4 years for perjury no doubt because the Establishment didn’t like him and he was fitted up for a long sentence.
It will depend on how many friends behind the scenes who will decide this mans sentence also.
The logic of perjury is a strange one. Any person who pleads not guilty and is convicted is technically guilty of perjury.
If he does go to Prison he will spend only a very short time in a local prison before being transferred to a luxury open prison and given a cushy job as librarian or similar.
wemyss
|
Lets get this into proportion…….Every day thugs who have left someone battered and bleeding on the pavement are let off with a punitive sentence of community work or being tagged.
I recall Geoffrey Archer getting 4 years for perjury no doubt because the Establishment didn’t like him and he was fitted up for a long sentence.
It will depend on how many friends behind the scenes who will decide this mans sentence also.
The logic of perjury is a strange one. Any person who pleads not guilty and is convicted is technically guilty of perjury.
If he does go to Prison he will spend only a very short time in a local prison before being transferred to a luxury open prison and given a cushy job as librarian or similar.
The fact that street thugs appear to get off lightly is neither here nor there.
Jeffery Archer got four years for perjury becuase he was a perjurer. He got a fair wind at the original libel trial becuase his elegant and persuasive wife stood by him.
The sentence in this case will be decided by the judge alone - the era of Profumo and the scandal of Stephen Ward's trial was a product of another era.
As a low risk prisoner, like Archer, he's likley to be a 'trusty ' and be in Cat C pretty quickly. Not exactly a threat to humanity is he? Why waste public money keeping him in a prison for murderers and rapists?
As to not guilty and perjury what interest would be served by putting a man found guilty back before a court on another charge? If the judge thinks the defendants evidence was a load of carp he reflects that in the sentence for the offence charged. If another party, not on the same set of charges, has lied to protect the defendant then he's quite likely to be on a perjury rap if it's affected the outcome.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 04/02/2013 at 22:18
|
Lets get this into proportion…….Every day thugs who have left someone battered and bleeding on the pavement are let off with a punitive sentence of community work or being tagged.
I don't think robbery and GBH are treated with a slap on the wrist. Unlike a lot of defendants, Huhne did not have poverty as a mitigating factor (not that poverty excuses criminality of course). Let's recap. For most people, losing a driving licence is very serious. For Huhne, it would merely have been inconvenient. There was no excuse to lie.
As a cabinet minister, Huhne was in a very privileged position-a position in which he was able (and did with gusto) to influence the legislation to which we all are beholden. As such, there is a particular onus upon him to obey the law. To commit purjury as a cabinet minister is a grave offence, and I hope that the judge told him to bring his toothbrush next time he appears in court.
|
|
I've never liked Huhne; a slippery, hypocritical worm of a man. Is this the same Chris Huhne who said only electric cars should be allowed to do 80mph because the rest of us are killing Johnny Polar Bear? The same Chris Huhne who proclaimed at the Lib Dem conference we should all take the bus to 'tackle climate change'? That Chris Huhne?
I find it amusing he's ended his career and faces jail over the sake of 3 penalty points. If he'd just owned up 10 years ago it would've never got this far. The more interesting bit though is the subsequent by-election in his notoriously interesting Eastleigh seat.
Keen politicos among you will know it's the seat the Lib Dems famously took from the Conservatives in 1994 after Stephen Milligans was killed by leather bondage straps and an apple in his mouth. Also standing in that election was a hardly known Nigel Farage for a - then - unknown fringe party which only just beat Lord Sutch. Labour don't really exist in Eastleigh, this is a straight fight between the Tories and Lib Dems and I'd be surprised if Farage isn't at least interested what with Tory vote-splitting potential and Labour not being front runners.
|
|
It'll be a good by-election to watch. Farage can have some fun with Cameron. Milliband will be irrelevant (as usual). Great sport!
|
|
First-past-the-post is something of a nightmare for a party like UKIP because coming 2nd nearly everywhere doesn't win you anything where as on PR in European elections it does. That being said I don't see them having a better shot before 2015 of a Westminster seat than Eastleigh. Other by-elections (Corby apart) this Parliament have been safe Labour seats but as I said they don't really exist in Eastleigh.
Theres plenty of disaffected Tory votes to take there and the Lib Dems will hold up better than many think. Eastleigh is proper Lib Dem country, not fashionable Lib Dem country like many Labour areas which went Lib Dem in 2010 so as they didn't have to vote for Gordon Brown. If Farage doesnt take it on then expect one of his close leftenants to have a go with Nige bashing a campaign drum.
|
First-past-the-post is something of a nightmare for a party like UKIP
It works both ways. Think of another way. FPTP makes it almost impossible for UKIP to win outright, but they can act as kingmaker in a way that PR never would.
If the traditional electoral make-up of a constituency is:
Cons: 40%
Lab: 35%
Lib dem: 25%
A comofortable Conservative victory.
And UKIP take come into the fray, taking only 10% of the vote, but weighted 80% from disaffected Conservative voters and 20% from disaffected Labour votors, .
The result is now:
Lab: 33%
Cons 32%
Lib Dems 25%
A narrow Labour win!
|
t.
Keen politicos among you will know it's the seat the Lib Dems famously took from the Conservatives in 1994 after Stephen Milligans was killed by leather bondage straps and an apple in his mouth. Also standing in that election was a hardly known Nigel Farage for a - then - unknown fringe party which only just beat Lord Sutch. Labour don't really exist in Eastleigh, this is a straight fight between the Tories and Lib Dems and I'd be surprised if Farage isn't at least interested what with Tory vote-splitting potential and Labour not being front runners.
On a matter of fact Jamie it was an orange, laced with some chemical, that was in poor Milligan's mouth and electric cable that strangeld him.
At the subsequent byelection Labour came in ahead of the Tories albeit in a LibDem landslide.
With the UKIP joker in play, particularly if Farage stands, and the current unpopularity of the coalition I'd say anything is possible. A tenner on labour to win at current odds might be a good investment.
|
|
Having served for over 32 years as a very Senior Officer in the Prison Service although being retired for over 16 years I do have a good knowledge of how the system works. What Brompt is saying is technically correct but having seen questionable decisions of the law in respect of sentencing and particularly appeal procedures in respect of well known celebrities I have to say that’s not how it always works.
Personally I couldn’t care less if he gets 10 months or ten years but my point was that sentencing at these high levels can be influenced by other factors.
|
|
Wemyss, I'd be interested in your views as to whether prison is the right punishment for the likes of Jeffrey (third time lucky with the spelling!) Archer and Chris Huhne. Similarly for fraudsters.
The commonest justification for prison sentences is as a deterrent - which it certainly isn't for fraudsters. The latest estimate of the value of fraud committed every year in the UK is £73 billion - one of the best growth areas we've got. Surely a better deterrent would be to make sure they were hit so hard in the pocket that they gained nothing financially from the fraud. At present they serve a few years in prison, come out and enjoy their ill-gotten gains.
Messrs Archer and Huhne, of course, were certain that they would get away with it. To my mind what makes Huhne (who I'm ashamed to say went to the same school as I did) beneath contempt is that he dumped his wife, who had herself perverted the course of justice out of loyalty to him. Praise be that someone of that nature will never take part in governing us again.
|
|
In America the Police seize assets of criminals (notably drug dealers) and auction them off to raise money. They also have UNICOR which currently employs about a fifth of inmates to produce goods for the Government to procure.
I do object to paying more than £100 a day to keep Chris Huhne in clean clothing, free food and a warm bed to live a living-expense-free existance, but apparently towing them up the M6 on their face is somewhat unreasonable.
|
In America the Police seize assets of criminals (notably drug dealers) and auction them off to raise money.
So do we.
|
|
Avant….I would agree completely with you in terms of sentencing for the likes of Jeffrey or Huhne. Both are enormously rich and fining them many millions of pounds would be beneficial to all of us instead of a few months Cat D open prison which are essentially nothing more than a gentleman’s country club.
Seven days in a Local Prison (correct terminology for prison which holds a prisoner on remand and for awaiting sentencing) would be worse than 6 months in an open Cat D prison.
There is no deterrent at all in these establishments and the conditions are in most cases much better than the inmates have at home.
Jeffrey ( If I may be so familiar ) was a celebrity in his open prison and was obviously a star performer admired by staff and inmate. I have had the experience of having had some well known guests as my tea boy! and would have a relaxed relationship with them listening to their stories.
Forgive the wanderings of an old man but I remember one in a Cat D open prison(no names no pack drill) but a very very wealthy man who told me one morning he was expecting a visit at 12.00hrs.
That’s not visiting time but he explained that his friend would be flying around the prison at this time in his private plane to wave to him on his birthday.
I told my No2 to get a length of 22mm foam insulation ready. At 12.00 the plane duly arrived and circled our Engineers work base.
He ran out of our offices and began waving away. Myself and big Nick ran out and grappled him to the ground and began beating him with the insulation which from the air would have looked like a baton.
He struggled valiantly and the plane circled even lower. It finally flew off leaving our dishevelled convict. We let him up and after calling us a few names he said " you silly b*****s when he gets back he will be ringing the Home Secretary or someone….Our answer was that your mate will have to explain flying over a Prison. He took it all in good fun of course and was a favourite among the Staff.
Forgive me for digressing but yes you are quite correct in saying that hitting the pocket of fraud and similar would be more effective.
wemyss
|
Lets get this into proportion…….Every day thugs who have left someone battered and bleeding on the pavement are let off with a punitive sentence of community work or being tagged.
I recall Geoffrey Archer getting 4 years for perjury no doubt because the Establishment didn’t like him and he was fitted up for a long sentence.
It will depend on how many friends behind the scenes who will decide this mans sentence also.
The logic of perjury is a strange one. Any person who pleads not guilty and is convicted is technically guilty of perjury.
If he does go to Prison he will spend only a very short time in a local prison before being transferred to a luxury open prison and given a cushy job as librarian or similar.
wemyss
Yes, but it is not worth prosecuting someone for perjury after being found guilty, when they pleaded innocent, and lied about their actions. The sentence for the crime is assumed to be enough deterrant and punishment.
In the case of PCJ, it is a very serious offence. Perjury has to be punished severely otherwise the whole justice system would crumble.You would have people giving false alibies for criminals, safe in the knowledge that the punishment was light were they to be found out.
Regarding Archer, he is a true scumbag if ever there was one. His lies destroyed the career of an honest journalist. Quite why he remained a Lord is beyond me, except that proof of dishonesty is proof that he would fit in well in the world of politics.
|
|
Disagree about your memory point, Leif
He committed the offence with 9 points sitting on his licence already, and a probable ban for the speeding offence. Personally, even after 10 years, I'd have some recollection that my license to drive was hanging by a thread, so I'd deliberately cheated the system and asked my wife to commit a form of administrative perjury.
I dont think any jury would've bought the 'I forgot' plea in the face of those circumstances.
I don't understand how your post related to mine. I was suggesting that she might not remember about something so long ago unless a) she checked up what she was doing at the time and b) noted it down, or made a point to remember.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
