Huhne

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Mr Pee
    Full Member
    • Nov 2010
    • 3285

    #61
    Originally posted by teamsaint View Post
    why on earth would you want to roll a tennis ball across a dual carriage way?

    Edit, and thinking about it, it could be very distracting and dangerous. No wonder he was an EX traffic officer.
    Oh dear.:erm:

    Obivously he wasn't suggesting we all actually go out and start throwing tennis balls around. You know what he meant.
    Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

    Mark Twain.

    Comment

    • amateur51

      #62
      Originally posted by Mr Pee View Post
      Oh dear.:erm:

      Obivously he wasn't suggesting we all actually go out and start throwing tennis balls around. You know what he meant.
      Obivously! :winkeye:

      Comment

      • Dave2002
        Full Member
        • Dec 2010
        • 18008

        #63
        Originally posted by jean View Post
        Isn't posting links to such stories for us to gawp at even sadder?

        (I gawped. Thanks.)
        Yes!

        Turns out the cognoscenti twitterati whatever are well ahead of us here. I mentioned it to someone the other day "Oh it was all in the Times - knew all about that!"

        I have mentioned it sells newspapers. I think journalists and reporters are not by any means blameless here. My view is that it - Huhne's misdemeanour - should have been dealt with at the time, or allowed to sink into obscurity, but seemingly some think otherwise - for what purpose?
        Last edited by Dave2002; 10-02-13, 12:55.

        Comment

        • Richard Tarleton

          #64
          I'm uncomfortable about - don't quite understand - the role of the Sunday Times political editor Isobel Oakeshott in all this. She seems to have been Vicky Pryce's friend, egged her on to bring down Huhne, and then broken the story about the points. It sounds as if neither Oakeshott nor Pryce quite grasped the potential consequences for the latter?

          Comment

          • jean
            Late member
            • Nov 2010
            • 7100

            #65
            Originally posted by Richard Tarleton View Post
            It sounds as if neither Oakeshott nor Pryce quite grasped the potential consequences for the latter?
            Pryce must have known there was a danger...but did she think it was a risk worth taking?

            Comment

            • eighthobstruction
              Full Member
              • Nov 2010
              • 6425

              #66
              My goodness, jury couldn't make their mind up....now going to retrail.....<taxpayer£££££>
              bong ching

              Comment

              • jean
                Late member
                • Nov 2010
                • 7100

                #67
                I think the judge was unnecessarily rude to the jury when they asked for clarification.

                He told them that of course they could not speculate about VP's mental state. But given the nebulous quality of marital coercion, what else could anyone do?

                Comment

                • ahinton
                  Full Member
                  • Nov 2010
                  • 16122

                  #68
                  Originally posted by jean View Post
                  Pryce must have known there was a danger...but did she think it was a risk worth taking?
                  Indeed; as I posted in another place:

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

                  Clearly, that great repository of factual information known to some over here as ISIHAC has let us down here, for whatever "points" mean in reality, it can't be "prizes".

                  The taxpayer will presumably now have to contribute towards the cost of a retrial, which will doubtless not come at a small Pryce.

                  Comment

                  • Sir Velo
                    Full Member
                    • Oct 2012
                    • 3225

                    #69
                    Originally posted by jean View Post
                    I think the judge was unnecessarily rude to the jury when they asked for clarification.

                    He told them that of course they could not speculate about VP's mental state. But given the nebulous quality of marital coercion, what else could anyone do?
                    A jury cannot speculate. They can draw inferences from the evidence presented, and on that basis reach their "reasoned" conclusions. This jury seems to be providing the most damning indictment of the jury system imaginable. Dare one say that the dumbing down, sorry "accessibilising", of today's educational standards is finally reaping its inevitable grim harvest in the inability of the average man or woman to understand plain English?

                    Comment

                    • mangerton
                      Full Member
                      • Nov 2010
                      • 3346

                      #70
                      Originally posted by Sir Velo View Post
                      Dare one say that the dumbing down, sorry "accessibilising", of today's educational standards is finally reaping its inevitable grim harvest in the inability of the average man or woman to understand plain English?
                      Oh, I think so. That is what the judge was saying. Plain to anyone with an IQ in double figures, which plainly some at least of the jury did not have.

                      Comment

                      • Flosshilde
                        Full Member
                        • Nov 2010
                        • 7988

                        #71
                        Originally posted by Sir Velo View Post
                        Dare one say that the dumbing down, sorry "accessibilising", of today's educational standards is finally reaping its inevitable grim harvest in the inability of the average man or woman to understand plain English?
                        'One' can, but I don't think 'one' would be right. We can't know (because the law relating to juries doesn't allow us to) just how many of the jury were unable to grasp their role, or what they were and weren't allowed to do. I haven't heard the evidence both sides gave, but I'm not sure that I could determine whether she was guilty or not. My view is that she clearly was guilty of perverting the cause of justice as she did 'claim' the points that Huhne should have had, but I would find it difficult to say if she was so overwhelmed by her husband that she couldn't refuse, & if she was would that make her less guilty, not guilty, or what?

                        (perhaps England needs the Scottish verdict of 'Not proven')

                        Comment

                        • Sir Velo
                          Full Member
                          • Oct 2012
                          • 3225

                          #72
                          Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
                          'One' can, but I don't think 'one' would be right. We can't know (because the law relating to juries doesn't allow us to) just how many of the jury were unable to grasp their role, or what they were and weren't allowed to do.
                          Have a butchers at this and then tell me if you still think that. :winkeye:

                          Comment

                          • eighthobstruction
                            Full Member
                            • Nov 2010
                            • 6425

                            #73
                            While they are questions that need not be asked one would think....the questions and the vocab are in fact very well worded and rounded....seems strange whoever wrote them could not understand the process in the first place....smacks of a neurotic 'jobs worth ' unable to take responsbility....
                            Last edited by eighthobstruction; 20-02-13, 19:05.
                            bong ching

                            Comment

                            • ahinton
                              Full Member
                              • Nov 2010
                              • 16122

                              #74
                              Originally posted by Flosshilde View Post
                              'One' can, but I don't think 'one' would be right. We can't know (because the law relating to juries doesn't allow us to) just how many of the jury were unable to grasp their role, or what they were and weren't allowed to do. I haven't heard the evidence both sides gave, but I'm not sure that I could determine whether she was guilty or not. My view is that she clearly was guilty of perverting the cause of justice as she did 'claim' the points that Huhne should have had, but I would find it difficult to say if she was so overwhelmed by her husband that she couldn't refuse, & if she was would that make her less guilty, not guilty, or what?

                              (perhaps England needs the Scottish verdict of 'Not proven')
                              Or indeed "In't Huhne", as they say on Radio Three...

                              Comment

                              • ferneyhoughgeliebte
                                Gone fishin'
                                • Sep 2011
                                • 30163

                                #75
                                Originally posted by Sir Velo View Post
                                Dare one say that the dumbing down, sorry "accessibilising", of today's educational standards is finally reaping its inevitable grim harvest in the inability of the average man or woman to understand plain English?
                                "One" might so "dare"; the rest of us would need evidence that the jury received their education from a variety of different establishments but all at the same time. Do we know, for example, that this Jury were all recepients of "today's" educational standards?
                                [FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X