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

 

Here is an amusing possibility.
She pleads guilty to get a lighter sentence and he pleads not guilty and is let off by the jury.
Now that would make me laugh.

 

Golden *****' "Split or Steal" endgame.

 

If she pleads guilty, she will not be heard by a jury and will be punished.
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.

 

It's the new political class Leslie. It is purely about power for them, they are shameless.

 

They might have some other evidence I wonder like photo or video?

Or perhaps they have evidence his wife was in some other location at the time of the offense.

 

Indeed, they stop shaving in certain places and you don't want to go near them ...

 

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?

 

Yes indeed Tony, they are totally selfish and absorbed only in their own career prospects if necessary at the expense of everything else which they should morally be safeguarding.

Les

 

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.

 

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

 

I would imagine the Crown have that covered based on some other evidence such as alleged recordings.

 

this was exactly the case with the Hamiltons, and the case was duly thrown out

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-speeding.html

 

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

 

While that's all very well none of that is what this case is about.

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!

 

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.

 

Sure then they perjured on the form. The Crown may also have evidence they to lie on some tapes I heard too.

Might have been Elvis driving with Lord Lucan in the passenger seat also I suppose?

 

I think that the Huhne case is a bit more complicated. Both are public figures and it is on record that on the relevant night she was speaking at a dinner some distance away which would have required doing some very illegal speeds to get to the location where the car was clocked bearing in mind the time that the dinner ended. Whereas he was returning from the European Parliament and would have flown back via Stansted. The car was caught close to Stansted at a time that ties in with when his flight would have landed, clearing customs, collecting baggage, etc..

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).