Martin2005

OK so you now want to change the point of attack? OK fine

Your comments on this and most things political could hardly be described as 'light-hearted', they are usually any thing but


I think that you are just embarrassed that yet again your certainty in your rather dim view of the world has trapped you into making the wrong assumptions.

TelBoy

Yep ok, but what's that got to do with packaged subprime products, where the market makers are far removed from the originating borrowers? I'm not trying to pretend that the banks didn't keep flogging this stuff after the amber lights went up, but things that i buy and sell here and now today are determined by their credit worthiness, so if somebody tells me i'm AAA (100% give or take) likely to get my money back, why should i be the guardian angel to forsake profit and question that in the way you nearly did at the traffic lights?

There has been suggestion that the ratings agencies were leaned on to maintain the AAA rating artificially and at that point yes it does become indefensible. But that's a level of deceit that goes way beyond the day to day activities of the average structured products desk, either then or today.

JTaylor

Ok.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

In that case you should leave thinking to those more capable then.

WTF have I got to be embarrassed about? It's a thread on a car forum on the Internet, not a speech at the G8 summit. Honestly this place gets worse and worse.

Look if you get a kick out of telling everyone they're d1ckhead with the benefit of hindsight then knock yourself out. Oh and make sure that fence you love to sit on doesn't give you splinters!

cster

"He started it"

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

All I said was Jehovah

Maz

iTrader: (34)

I recall that post well and it certainly gave me food for thought.

hodgy0_2

on that note -- what was the Mongoose back box like

hodgy0_2

actually credit where it is due, it was a good post

JTaylor

It was tacked on to a white, 1.3, 106 Rallye and was so loud it made my neighbour's car alarm go off. With the Green Cotton air filter, FSE Power Boost Valve and Splitfire plugs I must've gained at least 3 bhp.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

The point I'm trying, not very successfully, to make is that these two have lost their liberty over perverting the course of justice...about who got three points on their license! I mean, it's hardly earth shattering is it? Hardly one helping the other to avoid a prison sentence, get away with murder, get away with holding up a mail-train, is it?

Trying to put it in perspective, it just seems to me that to lock someone up for that is all about trying to make it look more like the crime was serious. It wasn't...not in the great scheme of things, it was piddling.

Sure, they perverted the course of justice, but even that OUGHT to have a sliding scale: a fine for something like this, and prison for trying avoid prison....

All this does is to send the message to the population at large that the legal profession is even further up it's own collective anus than we thought

AndyBaker

I'm not sure it was ever about speeding fines, she decided to use that in the interview with the newspaper purely for revenge because he was shagg1ng somebody else. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in her cell that first night to see if she thought it was worth it. What a tragedy for the kids

TelBoy

Not sure i agree, Alcazar. I think the sentence's strongest message is that it's a very VERY bad idea to lie to the Police, the courts and the judiciary. As the judge said, the endorsement system is to protect the public from bad drivers, so if the wrong people are getting the punishments, that objective will never be met. I don't think many people would see it as a slur on the legal profession itself as you seem to.

douglasb

The Judge's sentencing remarks are here.

They make it very clear that the issue wasn't speeding but an attempt by Chris Huhne to avoid a totting-up ban by getting Vicky Pryce to take his points (and that she agreed to do this for mutual benefit). This was to avoid hindering his career prospects as he climbed the slippery pole of politics. It was a cynical and deliberate lie.

He continued to deny doing anything wrong until it was obvious that he couldn't win. She continued to think that she could worm her way out of things.

The summary makes it clear that people in positions of power/influence can't think that they are above the law.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Yes, I suppose.

It just seems odd, all this just because he went over some arbitrary speed limit, and then lied about it.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Far from unique to the British legal system though. In France, for doing the same thing they'd have copped a minimum year inside plus a 100,000 Euro fine

douglasb

The speed thing is irrelevant. They were prosecuted for perverting the course of justice.

They knew which of them was driving at the time but chose to lie about this. If Chris Huhne had taken the three points he'd have had a 6 month totting up ban. In his mind that would have screwed his chances of becoming the LibDem candidate for Eastleigh. Instead, he got his wife to take the points.

They deserve each other.

cster

Well let's face it - this point swapping thing occurs on a pretty much daily basis.
The shear volume of policing done by cameras means detection rates in these cases will be negligible.
The fact of the matter is that this only came out because the former Mrs H turned out to be a bit of a nut job and her "friends" in the press didn't let their friendships get in the way of a good story - and it was a good story!
I am sure that this sentencing will only serve to prevent potential future vengeful wives from wagging their tongues in similar cases.
And I think we will soon see the marital coercion (of wives) defence consigned to the history books, which IMO is a good thing.
So in a round about way, this case will probably encourage more people to try this sort of thing, secure in the knowledge that their former spouses are unlikely to grass them up.

ScoobyWon't

The sentences are being reviewed to see if they were too lenient.

Give them longer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...y-lenient.html

David Lock

Am I right in saying that they only serve half the sentence anyway if they are good boys and girls and will probably be sent home early with tags because of "overcrowding" rules? So perhaps serve 25% of sentence.

dl

cster

Bullseye!

cster

All done and dusted now - wonder if they will be having a nice family get together?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22507000

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Bang on the mark, David.

What a crazy system.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

I heard on the news that they can serve the remainder while tagged at home because it's a first offence? In which case why doesn't the judge just hand down a shorter sentence rather than the mockery we have where they serve 25% of a sentence in custody.

dpb

Live in hope they'll get sacked into something dodgy in the next few months?

Probably the tory party

cster

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22875993
Further fallout from this case - who'd wanna be in Vicky's gang?
Another career ruined.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.