E_L, without getting into the sympathy argument, isn't the Judge's conclusion exactly the fact that they compounded errors and that made the initial crime more serious? Plus he specifically noted that Huhne had lied "again and again."
So it does look as though they compounded their errors and the justice system conlcudes that this makes their crimes more serious. That does not, in itself, prevent sympathy, but that is an individual call IMO.
E_L, without getting into the sympathy argument, isn't the Judge's conclusion exactly the fact that they compounded errors and that made the initial crime more serious. Plus he specifically noted that Huhne had lied "again and again."
And ? So he lied. I intensely dislike Chris Huhne and I was calling him a liar on here two years ago :
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/harriet-harman-might-not-be-that-bad-after-all#post-1953673
and guilty of election fraud :
But it doesn't mean that I've lost grip of reality and now think that he has committed some sort of heinous crime. Yes he got his wife to take some speeding points, but that's all. It's certainly less serious than Neil Hamilton's cash for questions.
Shes an idiot many times over however she should have received a suspended sentance. He deserves it. Perjury is ****ing serious. Idiot.
So I guess speeding will lead to the end of world ... no?
No, which is why they wouldn't have been sent to jail if he'd been honest in the first place.
Perjury is **** serious. Idiot.
How about paying attention and figuring out what he was found guilty of ?
So I guess speeding will lead to the end of world ... no?
Speeding hasn't really got a lot to do with this has it.
They didn't get 8 months each for speeding did they ?
Ernie, it was a straight point! No question of your grip on reality, just answering your question about does it make it more serious. But the whole case seems to be based on two people who compounded an underestimated, original offence (swapping points) with an even more serious, but still widely underestimated offence (perverting course of justice). So my point is, that from a legal perspective at least, the errors did compound the serious of their crime and the judge, for his part, had less sympathy with both as a result.
BTW - I am not commenting on the original crime but this case is a lesson to all on both counts.
teamhurtmore - MemberErnie, it was a straight point! No question of your grip on reality, just answering your question about does it make it more serious.
😕 Why don't you go back and check what my question was. I asked whether the fact that they had "both made loads" made the crime more serious.
Ernie, why the grumpy face?, I was interested in your question and the response. Nothing more, nothing less. Not looking for an argument about it. But to be clear, in answer to your question, yes it would appear so in this case. In fact, that seems to be the crux of the whole thing, surely?
Ernie, why the grumpy face?
It's a confused face, hence it is expressed thus : ?
But to be clear, in answer to your question, yes it would appear so in this case.
What, the judge said it was more serious because they had "both made loads" ? Well admittedly I haven't read the judge's remarks but that is so unlikely imo, that I don't actually believe you.
Why don't you go back and check what my question was. I asked whether the fact that they had "both made loads" made the crime more serious.
Did you misunderstand what I meant when I said "made loads" ?
Because they made a mistake ?
They both made loads....etc ....
I was just pointing out the fact that just because they "made a mistake" or actually "made loads" didn't automatically qualify them for sympathy by default.
They made loads (of mistakes) and showed total contempt for the law in trying to "win" a personal battle with each other, while presuming they were just going to get away with it because of who they are.
And I said I had no sympathy, because it was totally their own fault.
Did you misunderstand what I meant when I said "made loads" ?
Well if you didn't mean loads of money, then yes. What did you mean they made loads of then ?
Edited in response to your edited post :
OK fair enough, apologies, it wasn't clear to me that you meant loads of mistakes. Yeah they made plenty of them.
Fine, leave it there then. We can both read the judge's comments at our leisure.
We can both read the judge's comments at our leisure.
You haven't read them either ?
What did you mean they made loads of then ?
Crossed posts. See above.
Yeah I edited my post. And there's no doubt that they compounded the problem - this is what happens when you dig yourself into a hole. But it is still not the reason why I intensely dislike Huhne. The speeding affair/getting the wife to take points was not [i]that[/i] serious imo. And yes, I do feel a little sympathy for him, on a purely personal level. He has truly screwed up his life, with his kids etc.
The kids I do have sympathy for.
Because they haven't acted like self indulgent arses.
They are innocent and yet have been dragged into it all and suffered.
That's who I'll save my sympathy for.
At the end of the day, they both made a decision they knew was wrong as they thought they could get away with it.
They got found out and they both still thought they could get away with it. I suspect they may have made the assumption that they were 'above the law'. They have now found out.
Daft thing is that he was a serial speeder and got banned a short while afterwards anyway - suggests he doesn't learn!
Anyway, they are both criminals now and that is a recorded fact. They knew what they were doing was illegal, end of. Do I feel sympathetic towards them? Not really. They played the system and lost. They have no excuse.
I suspect they may have made the assumption that they were 'above the law'.
I suspect that they didn't think they were "above the law", the fixed penalty for speeding was a clue. What they appear to have thought was that they could get away with falsely claiming Pryce was the driver. Which was a perfectly fair assumption as there was no evidence to suggest the contrary, until Pryce decided to provide it.
IMO the 8 month sentence was correct and fair, what they did was wrong and deserved to be punished. I can however still feel some sympathy for the fact that they made a mistake which has deeply effected their lives, their families, and their careers. Their crime was not a wicked one which fills me with revulsion. And I'm not so perfect myself - I too have on occasions broken the law, almost always in connection with driving and car ownership. Luckily the consequences have never been that serious for me.
My thought would be that the Justice System is so weak in this country that any offence against it has to be dealt with severely
So you're not happy with 8 months then, bearing in mind that the maximum for the offence is life ?
Daft thing is that he was a serial speeder and got banned a short while afterwards anyway
Though to be strictly accurate, the offence he eventually got banned for wasn't speeding.
always wondered why certain police/witnesses have'nt being prosecuted for perverting the course of justice,two cases spring to mind,hillsborough and stefan kiszko especially the later case when the whole prosicution lied or withheld evidence,bit worse then fibbing about who was driving a car that was speeding.
asc73, agreed 100%. My thoughts exactly.
What a complete misappropriation of finite resources and failure to respect the priorities of a nation.
...and I can't help but think he may well have already suffered enough through having the misfortune of acqiring an (ex)partner who's evidently so vicious and vindictive.
It's usually down to the standard of proof required I think - not that easy to prove beyond reasonable doubt in most of those cases I suspect. In this case Pryce conveniently provided them with all the evidence they needed to convict her.
I have to admit I didn't know much about Kiszko - the wiki does have this little snippet "Kiszko also had an unusual hobby of writing down registration numbers of cars that annoyed him, which supported police suspicions" - which ought to worry some helmet cam users 😉
What a complete misappropriation of finite resources and failure to respect the priorities of a nation.
Prosecuting Huhne and Pryce? You think they should just let people get away with deliberately attempting to subvert the law then?
...and I can't help but think he may well have already suffered enough through having the misfortune of acqiring an (ex)partner who's evidently so vicious and vindictive.
You do know he was shagging someone else behind her back don't you? Also he already had 9 points on his license which suggests 3 previous convictions. You'd kinda think that someone so "brilliant" and "talented" would be a little quicker on the uptake.
He's an arrogant cock.
Yeah if a witness says "yep he did it, I saw him" I wondered why after a not guilty verdict the witness didn't get clobbered for perjury but then again some witnesses make honest mistakes, also some accused are found not-guilty due to other reasons, technicalities etc. Witness tells the truth but CPS screw up, those scenarios could end badly. You don't want to put honest people off being a witness do you?always wondered why certain police/witnesses have'nt being prosecuted for perverting the course of justice
(alleged) Police "stitch ups" are a bit different of course.
I really do despise Huhne. Whilst most peoples view is that the speeding fine wasn't significant, I think Coyote sums it up pretty well in his post above. All the drivers I know who have 9 points have got them because they repeatedly drive like ****ers. It's not they they are unlucky, it's that time and time they drive dangerously with no consideration to others.
If you get to 9 points and you carry on driving like a bellend, that shows a clear arrogance that you think it's OK for you to to drive like that. Doesn't do his environmental credentials much good either.
How about paying attention and figuring out what he was found guilty of ?
C'mon, you've been on here long enough to know better than asking questions like that!
always wondered why certain police/witnesses have'nt being prosecuted for perverting the course of justice,two cases spring to mind ... and stefan kiszko
It appears they were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed#Police_cleared_of_any_wrongdoing
scrap it, out of my depth again
Just thought I'd resurrect this as there's an interesting take on it by [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/12/huhne-pryce-jailing-inability-punish-public-failings ]Simon Jenkins[/url] today
TLDR
he kinda lost me after that para TBH, he may have a point about the baying for blood; mind you most news stories nowadays are either a media circus frenzy or a witch hunt or both, not unique to this one.Going over the speed limit is rightly an offence, but it is not reckless or dangerous driving. An estimated 10 million drivers, based on a survey conducted by Churchill insurers, say they would consider switching points to avoid a partner losing a licence. Reports from the AA and others suggest over half a million such "crimes" already. A law with so little public consent is a bad law and needs changing.
I'd gloss over that bit Donk. Its not really the start of the article, but the points he makes about the reasons for prosecution, and public vilification that are interesting.
[i]The truth is that we have so few ways of making power answer for its misdeeds that we grab hold of any stick that will do. There is virtually no accountability for incompetence in office beyond the ballot.[/i]
a half milion offences means that a law with so little public consent is a bad law and should be abolished ????? i suppose Simon Jenkins thinks burglary should not be a crime either.
No proportionate justice would commit Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce to jail. They did what thousands do, switched points and lied. No one died. No one was hurt. No one lost money. All they did was get caught through their own foolishness. They will not repeat their crime and pose no threat to society that requires incarceration.
He does have a point there....
Agree with just about all of that.
I can't see how prison sentences are going to benefit anyone under these circumstances. Community service would have been more than enough.
The truth is that we have so few ways of making power answer for its misdeeds that we grab hold of any stick that will do. There is virtually no accountability for incompetence in office beyond the ballot.
This however, is interesting. And there seems to be a lot of it going on at the moment. In an information age where everything is documented I reckon we'll see a lot more of it too.
They did what thousands do, switched points and lied. No one died. No one was hurt. No one lost money.
This is a redundant argument - it does not justify the actions. Because others break the law then it's ok?
The truth is that we have so few ways of making power answer for its misdeeds that we grab hold of any stick that will do. There is virtually no accountability for incompetence in office beyond the ballot.
This. The seeming impunity of those in power, who have been shown to abuse their position, seems to have angered a lot of people. These two have presented an opportunity to make frustrations known.The scale of the offence is less unpalatable than the apparent contempt shown for the rule of law that governs the rest of us.
This is a redundant argument
I'd say "They did what thousands do, switched points and lied." is irrelevant, however "No one died. No one was hurt. No one lost money. " is a valid point. If a law criminalises people who do no harm to anyone other than themselves, it's probably a daft law.
@footflaps - I see your point, but the Police time, CPS, courts time etc - it's not quite as simple as made out in the Gurniad, they were diverting resources. Who is to say what effect that may have had.
In my mind, the points are, in sequence:"No one died. No one was hurt. No one lost money. "
1) (if the current govt/police position on speeding/points etc is correct) A potentially dangerous driver avoided a ban by transfering blame falsely to his wife. Common enough, but so's theft
2) The above act is easily interpretable as perverting th course of justice. Common enough, but rarely discovered
3) The towering arrogance & stupidity of Pryce and then Huhne in attempting respectively to manipulate or obstruct the legal system to their own ends is sufficient to require them to be isolated from society in case it's contagious
4) The actual monetary "cost" of the 2 cases will prob never be clear but it'll be plenty
The prosecution also acts as a deterrent to future justice perverts.
