One law for the rich etc

[50 Hertz]

So, just to make this clear for me flecc, IF my ex had taken my points years ago and the case didnt actually have to go to court,and was all dealt with by post, would that still be called perjury ?

I had always presumed that you actually had to lie in court for it to be actual perjury if Im wrong then all I can say is thank god it never happened in my case.

Mind you, would that just have applied to him not me ?
In other words would I still have been treat as "innocent" in the eyes of the court if I didnt actually have to appear in the court and speak, seeing as there would not have been any dispute between us both as he would have just agreed he was the driver ?

Lynda

I think, and I will stand to be corrected, that by taking someone else's points under the circumstance you describe, the offence would be that of Perverting the Course of Justice, which carries the same maximum sentence as perjury, life imprisonment. The moment that the form is signed, and it carries a statement which the person knows to be false and the person intends that the course of justice to be perverted by signing the form, the offence is complete.

For a Perjury offence to be complete, I believe that would involve telling a lie under oath with the intention of perverting the course of justice.

 

[flecc]

The notice of intended prosecution (n.i.p) came before the points on her licence that is when the police ask who is driving. David

Missing the point David, the crime occurred at the moment when Chris Huhne stated his wife was driving. That was the first event, and the intention of that lie was to avoid his penalty. That intention is the perversion. The agreement at the time of his wife then created the conspiracy.

 

[flecc]

For a Perjury offence to be complete, I believe that would involve telling a lie under oath with the intention of perverting the course of justice.

I don't think that is necessary. When the police record a DVD of an accuser making their allegations under questioning, the accuser is cautioned that any lies will be perjury but no oath is demanded, only the question posed, "Do you understand".

At that stage even a case has not been decided upon, for the DVD is produced prior to any submission of a potential case to the Crown Prosecution Service. The clear inference is that perjury is not dependent on any prosecution or punishment.

 

[flecc]

My view is different.
They both conspired to pervert the course of justice.
Conspiracy is,
Two or more agree to do something unlawful by unlawful means,
Two or more conspire to do something unlawful by lawful means,
Two or more conspire to do something lawful by unlawful means.
The court rejected all claims that Mrs Huhne was pressured into the conspiracy.
I think that she is equally guilty

Equally guilty of that aspect, but I don't think the offences merited the same sentence. My reason is that he instigated her crime, without any of his factors, his speeding, his lie and his request to her, she would not have been involved with any offence. Clearly he was entirely guilty of creating all aspects of the crime, she only of one.

 

[mike killay]

Well,
It's a point, but the original offence was speeding. That was what he instigated.
The conspiracy came later, obviously someone has to initiate the conspiracy, but if the other(s) go along with it, they are equally guilty.
I take the point that he was probably the main instigator and deserved more punishment, but I do not absolve her.

 

[tillson]

Former cabinet minister Chris Huhne has been ordered to pay £77,750 in legal costs relating to his prosecution for passing speeding points to his ex-wife. His ex-wife, economist Vicky Pryce, was ordered to pay £49,200 by Mr Justice Sweeney at Southwark Crown Court.

I can't stop laughing.

 

[Arbol]

You are so lucky in the UK ... a politician commits a fault and the law punishes him, possibly harshly. In Spain, politicians and others among the "corporate welfare business" steal gazillions, and it is impossible to bring them to Court. On the opposite, those that raise the issue are punished by the extractive networks massively, creating a veil of (silent) terror on society, and solidifying the same corporate welfare.

 

[oldtom]

The term, "points shifting" trivialises what has taken place. Hulme has attempted to alter the course of the law through lies and deceipt. Although the original offence of speeding and accruing 3 points isn't the crime of the century, attempting to steer the law in your favour by using calculated deceit and cheating is serious. The justice system in this country has many faults, but on the whole, it's not bad and when compared to some countries it is something worth upholding and supporting. The actions of worthless filth such as Hulme needs to be punished. What he did is an affront to all of us. The man is a total disgrace and I've just picked up something better than him with a poop scoop.

I love the fact that so many have contributed to this thread on a forum with a sizeable number of members riding and boasting about their illegal two-wheelers.

For me, there's no difference whatsoever between the likes of Huhne and those people who, knowing the law, selfishly choose to do as they please because they delude themselves that that's what a free society is all about.

Even if the forum apologists would have us believe that the illegality concerned with non-compliant ebikes is trivial, that really isn't the point.

Tom

 

[benjy_a]

I love the fact that so many have contributed to this thread on a forum with a sizeable number of members riding and boasting about their illegal two-wheelers.

For me, there's no difference whatsoever between the likes of Huhne and those people who, knowing the law, selfishly choose to do as they please because they delude themselves that that's what a free society is all about.

Even if the forum apologists would have us believe that the illegality concerned with non-compliant ebikes is trivial, that really isn't the point.

Tom

Why bring up this over discussed issue yet again? Seriously!

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you...just so bored of this particular discussion.

 

[Arbol]

I love the fact that so many have contributed to this thread on a forum with a sizeable number of members riding and boasting about their illegal two-wheelers.

For me, there's no difference whatsoever between the likes of Huhne and those people who, knowing the law, selfishly choose to do as they please because they delude themselves that that's what a free society is all about.

Even if the forum apologists would have us believe that the illegality concerned with non-compliant ebikes is trivial, that really isn't the point.

Tom

That view is only valid under a very particular way of understanding the law ("the law creates morality"). But under most other "models of reality" (and most people believe morality creates the law, not the converse), not all "illegal" actions are equally "bad". "Freedom fighters" come to mind, for example (and please, do not take this view as a political one, only a factual one). Sometimes, it is even "good" to break the law.

 

[flecc]

Sometimes, it is even "good" to break the law.

Indeed, that always applies when I break a law.

Superficially our UK legal system may appear to be good following the trials of MPs and other notable persons, but the system can no longer withstand a look in depth.

In fact our current governments in the UK now not only routinely break laws, they even pass laws that are recognised by other competent legal authorities and administrations as being fundamentally illegal, being in breach of existing UK and European law.

Not content with that, our present prime minister wishes to scrap earlier sound and widely accepted UK law in order to correct the that illegality, and has actually said that he will ignore European court decisions in future.

And I could write endlessly about the way our once respected British legal system has been perverted by governments since 1994. Suffice it to say that the Home Office estimates that some 3000 innocent people are currently wrongly in prison as a result of that perversion of the legal system to increase the prosecution success rate. That's 1 in 28, and some others in a position to know believe that number of imprisoned innocents to be very much higher. The numbers who have been wrongly convicted and given punishments other than prison is certainly in the tens of thousands.

The outcome of this obscenity has been many lives damaged and even ruined, broken marriages and numerous suicides of the innocent in despair of ever getting genuine justice to clear their name.

It's difficult to have respect for our current legal system which has lost it's respect for the individual in favour of political and administrative expediency. I regard much of it with contempt.
.

 

[shemozzle999]

We live in tough times.

The rich have been allowed to syphon up all the tangible global assets and are now in control of the weak politicians who are manipulating the laws to keep them happy.

In the meantime we have been forced into printing worthless paper money to support a very thinly disguised recovery.

The only way out of it is to reclaim the assets but I fear that this can only be done forcefully.

 

[jazper53]

We have the power to not buy the lies anymore and vote them out, Labour and Consertive parties are the two sides of the same coin, arrogant, and corrupted by power and represent only those who can afford to lobby. Democracy seem to start with the ballot box and its demise the day after.

 

[shemozzle999]

The world is now trading in the new intangible assets, the primary one is debt.

It has no value but is booming and is self generating on a grand scale - are you debt rich?

 

[peerjay56]

The world is now trading in the new intangible assets, the primary one is debt.

It has no value but is booming and is self generating on a grand scale - are you debt rich?

Typical. Years ago, when it wasn't fashionable, I seemed to have plenty. Now, when it's in vogue, I have none

 

[shemozzle999]

Yes you do.

It has been gifted to all of us by the past and present politicians but don't worry it will be the future generations that will have to pay it back .

 

[flecc]

And of course the even greater madness is that countries in debt lend to others. The USA and Britain with debt levels far beyond any prospect of ever paying them off still lend to other nations to "help" them with their debts!

It's a mad out-of-control merry-go-round.
.

 

[tillson]

And of course the even greater madness is that countries in debt lend to others. The USA and Britain with debt levels far beyond any prospect of ever paying them off still lend to other nations to "help" them with their debts!

It's a mad out-of-control merry-go-round.
.

Who do we owe this money to? It's a serious question, the debt which the UK has, who specifically is that money owed to?

 

[flecc]

Who do we owe this money to? It's a serious question, the debt which the UK has, who specifically is that money owed to?

Our just over £1 trillion UK government debt is net debt, what we've borrowed less what we've lent.

The borrowing is mostly through the markets from investors in government issued "gilts", safe investment bonds as long as the country doesn't reach bankruptcy.

The investors are anyone with money who decide the return is sufficient when measured against the risk. I've been an investor in gilts at times, as have a few other "ordinary" UK residents, but of course most of the money comes from the various institutions. Chiefly these are banks, pension funds, investment companies, other governments and wealthy individual business leaders.

Today brings news that over 100 billionaires have made the UK their home. 72 of them living in London, in part because it's a safe home for their invested fortunes. So the origins of the money are diverse, much from Russia with India and China also prominent.

So the nature of the national debt is arguable, much of the money borrowed from that which is already owned in the UK, so in one sense not actually owed by the country at all, since the country cannot owe itself. After all, the combined fortunes of our resident billionaires alone is nearly equal to one third of our national debt. The debts are only actual at individual levels.

The real problem of national debt is not the debt at all, it's the interest it costs. For example, during the mad Thatcher period of the 1980s when interest rates rose to beyond 15%, I invested a stack of money in the gilts from then. It was split three ways at 13%, 13.5% and 14%, and I benefited from that very high income through to 1999, 2000, and 2001 respectively, making me well off as a result of past government mismanagement.
.

 

[stu]

Going back to fleccs original point of the rich taking the micky, frankly it makes me feel like a mug, when i see politicians and the rich getting away with it what with their expenses, tax avoidance etc, the list is endless. However i am honest in what i say and do, when im on my deathbed in some grotty old nursing home looking back on life will i pat myself on the back or think you were a mug there boy, the meek may inherit the earth but not the mineral rights.