David Lock

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21516473

Well I bet she'll have a nice weekend

dl

ScoobyWon't

I wonder if she's feeling worried or confident now?

David Lock

Jury were a bunch of thickos according to judge

dl

hodgy0_2

The judge said they displayed a "fundamental deficit in understanding"

I think that about most posters on here too

SJ_Skyline

er.... no.

David Lock

Minds uncluttered by knowledge

dl

hodgy0_2

lol, they had probably read something about it on an internet forum

muppets

cster

Or...a bunch of people who couldn't get out of jury duty.

dpb

What a blumin waste cash, just shove em both in clink be done with it

David Lock

In same cell - now that would be fun

dl

dpb

They've spent years stitching each other up and we the taxpayer have to decide, and pay for, which ones guilty est. Joke

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Well, well, well, what a surprise.

Next week, her lawyer will no doubt appeal saying she can't now have a fair trial, and she will have to be let off......

And then idiot man changes his plea again.......

Leslie

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

cster

Even though she has admitted guilt, the onus is still on the prosecution to prove that she was not coerced by her husband to take the points.
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

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

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?

dpb

Yeh just send em down guity as charged,just like South Africa lol

They can get their defence story straight between them while they eat gruel

hodgy0_2

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

hodgy0_2

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

cster

One could argue that, or one could argue that this case is about
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

dpb

Do you think either of them could /will get a life sentence Hodgy?!

hodgy0_2

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

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

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.

hodgy0_2

i give up

hodgy0_2

a bit like the trial judge

Gear Head

iTrader: (2)

Good idea.

cster

I think you've made some fair points.
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?

dpb

It's a bit like Oscur letting off in a restaurant the other week isn't it, nobody batted not eyelid

They're both guilty, he'll never get back into power -. Job done

hodgy0_2

are you really stupid enough to believe the CPS only prosecute cases of "perverting the course of justice" on MP's and Celebrities

are seriously suggesting that if the police had evidence that you or I had perverted the course of justice they would do nothing

cster

If you have read my post, you will see the reason I give as to why this case came to the attention of the police is that " Her vindictive actions were only made worthwhile by the standing of her husbands political career and the harm that this would cause to him."
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.

Bikerboygreen

iTrader: (3)

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!