Chris Huhne's ex-wife found guilty

Well bum...I was reading another article on the site, and before I was finished it told me to uggerbey offrey and pay for thier wisdom. :dummy:
 
What a pair of plonkers, and their teenage Son was dragged into it (on his Mother's side of the argument IIRC, calling his Father all the names under the sun). Silly, silly people. :shake:
 
Last edited:
I know some people will say they deserve all they get, and he may get a custodial sentance... as perverting the course of justice is seen as very severe.

Yet there will be people convicted of possessing child porn and getting a far less sentence...
 
cambsno said:
I know some people will say they deserve all they get, and he may get a custodial sentance... as perverting the course of justice is seen as very severe.

Yet there will be people convicted of possessing child porn and getting a far less sentence...
Click to expand...

+1 :thumbs:
Our legal system is a joke
 
cambsno said:
I know some people will say they deserve all they get, and he may get a custodial sentance... as perverting the course of justice is seen as very severe.

Yet there will be people convicted of possessing child porn and getting a far less sentence...
Click to expand...

And there will probably be people killed this year, by people who are only driving because they've offloaded their points on a family member.

I've no sympathy. It's a good thing that the "accomplice" was tried in this case. It should serve as a warning to the spouses of bad drivers everywhere.
 
What rub's me up, is the fact he denied it for 10 years!! then admits it on the eve of the trial, i'm sorry. but they want jailing for a long time and should also have to pay the cost's for all the hours spent on the case from day one!
 
Because I'm idol and don't want to google it in a nut shell can some kind soul tell me what the case is about.
 
crofter said:
Should put them both in the same cell that would sort them.
Click to expand...

I think that would count as "cruel and unusual punishment". I like it! :D
 
Ha, ha. Good. Hope they both get time.

The comparison to other crimes is not a valid argument. Like in the trial, each set of circumstances must be taken in their own right and not judged against other things.

For the record, the law doesn't permit the punishment I'd give to Paedos.
 
Last edited:
Because I'm idol and don't want to google it in a nut shell can some kind soul tell me what the case is about.
Click to expand...

Very quickly, Man gets flashed by a speed camera.
Wife signs the Enquiry form says she was driving the car, and she gets the points on her license, hubby doesn't get disqualified as a result.

However, hubby later gets caught with his hand in the wrong place on his assistant, and wife understandably gets the hump.

Wife goes to press to discredit hubby, but by doing so drops herself in the poo.

Both get charged with Perverting the Course of Justice.

Hubby spends 2 weeks trying to get out of it, and fails. So pleads guilty.

Wife says she was put under pressure to take the points, and was all hubby's fault.

Jury aren't convinced and she also gets found guilty.

Moral of the story, don't lie on a legal form.


Simon

I know some people will say they deserve all they get, and he may get a custodial sentance... as perverting the course of justice is seen as very severe.

Yet there will be people convicted of possessing child porn and getting a far less sentence...
Click to expand...

You're right, but I think thats more of an issue with lax sentences than an indication neither fo these 2 should do time.

In my opinion, which is worth nothing, all child indecency offences should result in doing time. But so should all dishonesty offences.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Very quickly, Man gets flashed by a speed camera.
Wife signs the Enquiry form says she was driving the car, and she gets the points on her license, hubby doesn't get disqualified as a result.

However, hubby later gets caught with his hand in the wrong place on his assistant, and wife understandably gets the hump.

Wife goes to press to discredit hubby, but by doing so drops herself in the poo.

Both get charged with Perverting the Course of Justice.

Hubby spends 2 weeks trying to get out of it, and fails. So pleads guilty.

Wife says she was put under pressure to take the points, and was all hubby's fault.

Jury aren't convinced and she also gets found guilty.

Moral of the story, don't lie on a legal form.
Click to expand...

Many thanks.:thumbs:
 
Bernie174 said:
Very quickly, Man gets flashed by a speed camera.
Wife signs the Enquiry form says she was driving the car, and she gets the points on her license, hubby doesn't get disqualified as a result.

However, hubby later gets caught with his hand in the wrong place on his assistant, and wife understandably gets the hump.

Wife goes to press to discredit hubby, but by doing so drops herself in the poo.

Both get charged with Perverting the Course of Justice.

Hubby spends 2 weeks trying to get out of it, and fails. So pleads guilty.

Wife says she was put under pressure to take the points, and was all hubby's fault.

Jury aren't convinced and she also gets found guilty.

Moral of the story, don't lie on a legal form.
Click to expand...

And not strictly relevant to your summary but as interesting "add-ons":

1. In the wife's first trial the jury couldn't reach a verdict and asked some interesting questions for which they were subsequently ridiculed in the press.

2. A barrister/part time judge has also been arrested along the way for allegedly telling porkies about her dealings with the press in leaking the story in the first place.

3. Very public falling out of children with father.

All in all a very messy tale of two probably not very nice people who felt themselves above the law.
 
They might get custodial sentences, but they'll either be suspended or very short, and any time served will be in some powder puff open prison....possibly on Sheppey. The prisons over thier are popular depositories for politicians, actors, former judges etc etc etc.

Few months in the Scrubs or Holloway might open thier eyes a bit :)
 
And not strictly relevant to your summary but as interesting "add-ons":
Click to expand...

I think a few more may come out too in the next few weeks, as both of them attempt a bitch fest to try and deflect.

Viv
Ye of little faith.
Hubby is going to get around 6 months I'd guess. He's pooed the pot by trying to get out of the case going ahead, and 'The System' really don't like that, at all.
She, pleaded not, and lost any discount for pleading, so shes going inside too.
Ok, 6 months, means out in 2, but it's a step in the right direction, and thoroughly deserved!
On the down side, yes, they will both spend most of their sentence in open prison probably. But as a consolation, unless things have changed all prisoners go to big boys (and girls) nasty prisons initially, so a few nights in teh Scrubs for Chris. Although, I understand he's ex public school, so home from home for him, bad food and unnatural sex.
 
pepi1967 said:
Because I've been living on Mars and don't want to google it in a nut shell can some kind soul tell me what the case is about.
Click to expand...

He gets done for speeding, wife takes points, plays hide the sausage with a bisexual lover, ****ed off wife shops him, he pleads guilty , she pleads innocent, gets found guilty and now looks a complete idiot as she'll probably be going to jail where it's not very posh and they might not let the Harrods van deliver
 
cambsno said:
I know some people will say they deserve all they get, and he may get a custodial sentance... as perverting the course of justice is seen as very severe.
Click to expand...

It's seen as very severe because it is very severe. I would start at a year inside for a first offence of PCOJ.
 
FNS said:
The joke isn't our legal system,but the way the Judiciary interpret it is. :cuckoo::cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Our common law system is excellent and our senior judges are on the whole very, very sharp, although I disagree with some of the rulings of David Eady.

Ultimately judges can only work with the laws parliament give them, which is why I find politicians that criticize judges totally absurd (Theresa May, I'm looking at you).
 
onomatopoeia said:
It's seen as very severe because it is very severe. I would start at a year inside for a first offence of PCOJ.
Click to expand...

That's fine, but not when more serious offences attract a lesser sentance.

On the whole our system is excellent when you compare to other countries. However there are cases that make the papers which do grab attention.
 
okay its silly thing to do but i wonder how many people on here would take points on behalf their love one if it meant they would be disqualified (more so if it would affect household income substantially), be it because of a strong relationship or (as they keep saying on R2 at the moment) marital coercion.

yeah a poor decision but not always straight forward.

personally i think people and the media only care because its an MP.
 
neil_g said:
how many people on here would take points on behalf their love one if it meant they would be disqualified (more so if it would affect household income substantially).
Click to expand...

Except that was never an issue for Huhne, he could have just billed all transport costs to his expenses if he was banned.

He was just too arrogant and self important, probably felt those laws didn't apply to him.
 
personally i think people and the media only care because its an MP.
Click to expand...


Indubitably Holmes.

But an MP lying - is in the public interest surely. Lets see how many MP's when asked IF they knew about it say they did not...that's next.
 
neil_g said:
okay its silly thing to do but i wonder how many people on here would take points on behalf their love one if it meant they would be disqualified (more so if it would affect household income substantially), be it because of a strong relationship or (as they keep saying on R2 at the moment) marital coercion.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't, nor would I expect it. To do so goes against one of my core principles - personal responsibility.


"Marital coercion" as a defence should be abolished. It's only available to women (which presupposes that women are incapable of coercing their husbands - yeah right), it's only available when a couple are married, so not to unmarried people that cohabit and it's not available to women in a civil partnership. It's almost certainly in conflict with Article 14 of the ECHR prohibiting discrimination and is 100 years past its sell by date.
 
neil_g said:
okay its silly thing to do but i wonder how many people on here would take points on behalf their love one if it meant they would be disqualified?
Click to expand...

Quite a few I would think. Far more than would admit to doing it.
 
neil_g said:
okay its silly thing to do but i wonder how many people on here would take points on behalf their love one if it meant they would be disqualified (more so if it would affect household income substantially), be it because of a strong relationship or (as they keep saying on R2 at the moment) marital coercion.
.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt personally - but i suspect that even those who would would then have the sense to keep their mouths shut about what they'd done

rather than broadcasting it in an illconcieved attempt to get even during a marital row/break up
 
Bernie174 said:
Very quickly, Man gets flashed by a speed camera.
Wife signs the Enquiry form says she was driving the car, and she gets the points on her license, hubby doesn't get disqualified as a result.

However, hubby later gets caught with his hand in the wrong place on his assistant, and wife understandably gets the hump.

Wife goes to press to discredit hubby, but by doing so drops herself in the poo.

Both get charged with Perverting the Course of Justice.

Hubby spends 2 weeks trying to get out of it, and fails. So pleads guilty.

Wife says she was put under pressure to take the points, and was all hubby's fault.

Jury aren't convinced and she also gets found guilty.

Moral of the story, don't lie on a legal form.


Simon



You're right, but I think thats more of an issue with lax sentences than an indication neither fo these 2 should do time.

In my opinion, which is worth nothing, all child indecency offences should result in doing time. But so should all dishonesty offences.
Click to expand...

One thing that confused me was a recording of a telephone call between the two, where Vicky Pryce wondered how the press found out it was she who took the points.

How could she possibly allege that her husband had passed of the points to someone else without it being found out it was her?

On this link at about 1:15
 
LASTOLITE said:
Indubitably Holmes.

But an MP lying - is in the public interest surely. Lets see how many MP's when asked IF they knew about it say they did not...that's next.
Click to expand...

MP lies.... How is that in the public interest? They do it all the time!!! Mind you, they are not as bad as silvio!!!
 
I have absolutely no time for anyone who speeds. I already think the points system gives too many 2nd chances, so no I wouldn't accept points on behalf of someone else.

Any comparison between this and other sentences is pretty pointless though. They're hardly comparable crimes or circumstances!
 
Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence, but I think the issue here is that the judiciary consider it to be perhaps more serious than it actually is because it shows disrespect for them and for their system.

For example, failure to answer bail is regarded by the Courts as very serious. So is failure to pay fines, although failure to pay compensation to victims is apparently unimportant to them.

As I see it, the Courts take themselves far too seriously and take the victims of crime far less seriously than they should. As Bernie says, there are plenty of crimes that should almost automatically lead to prison time.
 
Garry Edwards said:
although failure to pay compensation to victims is apparently unimportant to them.

As I see it, the Courts take themselves far too seriously and take the victims of crime far less seriously than they should.
Click to expand...

Agreed, my sister was awarded £150 compensation after some oik snapped her door mirror off, he never paid a penny, last time she contacted the court they said he'd moved and the didn't know (couldn't be bothered to look) where he was

A complete and utter joke, still, all the solicitors got paid
 
One thing that confused me was a recording of a telephone call between the two, where Vicky Pryce wondered how the press found out it was she who took the points.

How could she possibly allege that her husband had passed of the points to someone else without it being found out it was her?
Click to expand...

To be honest I think she'd just lost all reason by then, and the urge for revenge was obviously overwhelming.

Someone said the CJS is a joke. It kind of is, but these days there's less desecration for Judges to impose what might be the most appropriate sentence. The guidelines, issues by the Attorney General are the bible for it, and guess where that comes from? Government.
So while the system is currently being applied in a way that makes it a joke, left to it's own devices it wouldn't be, well, not to the same extent.

Garry
there's a vast difference between failing to answer bail and PCOJ. The first is clearly there to ensure the system works, and the alternative is no bail. In any case it's not treated as seriously as it was, and arguably should be any more. The second, yes, it is an abuse of the system, and that must be the core of the Judicial system. Obviously it follows it must be taken seriously as a result. So, no it isn't treated more seriously than it is at all.
 
Seems to me that the moral of the story is:

If you enter into a criminal conspiracy with someone, you'd better make sure you maintain good relations with your co-conspirator.

Or...

Don't play away, when your wife can ruin your career.
 
Blackadder : Criminal record ?
Baldrick : Absolutely not sir !
Blackadder: oh for gods sake Baldrick, you're going to be an MP , i'll just put fraud and sexual deviancy
 
big soft moose said:
Mrs Moose : Criminal record ?
Pete : Absolutely not ma'am !
Mrs Moose: oh for gods sake Pete, you're going to be an MP , i'll just put fraud and sexual deviancy
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you Pete :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top