Seconds out - Round 2 !
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21575600
Let's hope the prosecution have used round one as a warm up and that the jury selection has been a little more rigorous.

Justice Sweeney........bet his mates call him "Jack":lol1:

Shut it you schlaaaaag :mad:

This story just gets better and better.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ris-Huhne.html
Who'd wanna be in Vicky's gang?

What's the betting the judge doesn't get prosecuted? After all, she only needs to be a lesbian and disabled and she has it all......

nothing new

https://www.scoobynet.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=50

Well they do say there is nothing new under the sun :thumb:
Funnily enough, the mental image I had of said judge was a white old bloke - guess I got that one wrong!
I was having a chat today with someone who has worked with said Vicky.
He tells me that she ain't no pushover.
I was shocked to hear this.

a good friend worked for her at KPMG, if she was not happy with a report she would launch it out the 6th floor window

but, and it is a big but you can not then extrapolate, that just because she is a powerful personality at work she is equally powerful in her marriage

I have heard that same sort of argument put forward by people who say “why would <insert celebrity here> pay prostitutes for sex, when they could have anyone

why would <insert very rich celebrity here> be involved in match rigging/fraud when they do not need the money

why would a powerful business women wilt in front of her husband

who knows - people are all different

Maybe they are both bullies?
Personally, I think the marital coercion laws are laughably anachronistic.
I think her defence based on them is unplanned, desperate and pathetic.
In view of her ability as a formidable woman to punch through glass ceilings, her position is just plain embarrassing. As a father of two aspiring teenage daughters, I'm aghast. What do you think of her example? Perhaps you have daughters too?
Her idea of acceptable (and entirely predictable) collateral damage to her immediate family and "friends" is astonishing.
Good bloody laugh for the rest of us though.

WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY.

It's almost as if she thinks the rest of us actually give a damn. :rolleyes:

She did what she did. Why there has to be a court case over something she has already admitted, I'll never know.

^^ Because there was a strict court ruling prohibiting contact with the press, which she breached. And as a judge i'd say that's a pretty serious offence if you're trying to maintain legal impartiality? If it was your trial, you'd give a damn, a big damn.

There is a court case because she is trying to get off.
Try to keep up 007!
ps - like the user name:lol1:
It is a waste of money though - if they go to jail, will cost the taxpayer even more - but the law needs to make an example in order to justify the use of speed cameras as a safety issue. Without the ability to dole out demerit points, they will be perceived as no more than revenue raisers ;-)

It is against the law to take another person's points so if you get caught at it you can expect to be done for it in court.

Les