Huhne

[Sir Velo]

As in, I defy anyone to claim they never break a speed limit when making regular journeys, albeit by 1 or 2 mph. It's quite easy to do when you're on a strange road and you've observed the 40mph limit mistakenly for a 30mph. You're a professional driver: have you never been 'a criminal'?

To get three points may be regarded as a misfortune; to get six looks like carelessness; to accrue twelve shows an abject disregard for other road users.

[eighthobstruction]

To get three points may be regarded as a misfortune; to get six looks like carelessness; to accrue twelve shows an abject disregard for other road users.

....Yep!!....

[french frank]

frenchie, Huhne had already accumulated 9 points, IIRC. My licence is clean and has been so since the day I got my provisional car licence. I am, perhaps, something of a stickler for speed limits, and that includes the 5 mph ones in car parks as well as the 20 and 30 mph town limits and 50, 60 and 70 mph National Speed Limits. How can you mistake a 40 mph limit for a 30? If there are lamp-posts and no frequent small round signs indicating a higher limit, it's 30 mph or lower.

I was put in the position of defendng what I wasn't saying in the first place: that speeding as an offence was 'footling'. I didn't say that - and it's quite clear I didn't mean that. I was saying that even as speeding offences go, the authorities were treating it as a fixed penalty offence. No prosecution or court appearance, even at a magistrates court. The speeding offence itself was being dealt with, initially, as a minor one. The complication for Huhne was not the gravity of the speeding offence but his past record and the repercussions of that. The actual offence itself would never have put him behind bars for 8 months. All that was simply an aside to disagree with what I thought VP's friend was saying: that the sentence was harsh. I think they both got away surprisingly lightly.

I challenge anyone to justify saying that I said (in Msg #165) that speeding in general was not serious - which is how you and others responded - but to show how an offence which was being dealt with by a standard small fine ended up putting them in jail.

[Anna]

Chris Huhne is, I believe, a millionaire. If he'd just taken the points, lost his licence for a short while, he could have employed a chauffeur, a bit of naughty boy and slapped wrist scenario, soon forgotten and all this would not have happened ......... I have no sympathy, they brought this upon themselves and consider the sentence very light for both of them perverting the course of justice. Still, I imagine Ms. Pryce probably has a book deal in the pipeline.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Still, I imagine Ms. Pryce probably has a book deal in the pipeline.

Ironically written for her by someone else.

[MrGongGong]

Chris Huhne is, I believe, a .

.................

fill in the gap ?

[teamsaint]

.................

fill in the gap ?

start a limerick?

[Sir Velo]

Simon Jenkins takes a different view in The Grauniad. Almost makes one wonder whether Huhne and/or Pryce are personal friends.

[Sir Velo]

Still, I imagine Ms. Pryce probably has a book deal in the pipeline.

And of course a few months in the clink will just bump up that advance a bit further. Her agent will be rubbing their hands.

[scottycelt]

Now Justin Webb on the Today programme on R4 has continued the line of his ever-giggling colleague and is rabbiting on about poor VP possibly being treated in a 'sexist' manner.

Unbelievably tawdry stuff from the BBC after a court of law has found the woman guilty as charged ... :erm:

[jean]

Simon Jenkins takes a different view in The Grauniad. Almost makes one wonder whether Huhne and/or Pryce are personal friends.

I doubt it! He just thinks they're being punished for the wrong crimes:

Huhne...left power stations unbuilt and energy supply at risk, while pursuing an obsession with giving rich landowners millions of pounds of other people's money to erect senseless wind turbines. Let him answer for that.

As for Pryce...as joint head of the government economic service from 2007-10 she should account for the direst years in postwar economic policy. If ever her profession were to stand trial for its role in the credit crunch, she is surely one person who should be in the dock.

[Julien Sorel]

I doubt it! He just thinks they're being punished for the wrong crimes:

Huhne...left power stations unbuilt and energy supply at risk, while pursuing an obsession with giving rich landowners millions of pounds of other people's money to erect senseless wind turbines. Let him answer for that.

As for Pryce...as joint head of the government economic service from 2007-10 she should account for the direst years in postwar economic policy. If ever her profession were to stand trial for its role in the credit crunch, she is surely one person who should be in the dock.

Well he has a point. And Simon Jenkins could stand trial for his part in the absurd Millennium Dome extravaganza.

According to the UK National Audit Office, the total cost of The Dome at the liquidation of the New Millennium Experience Company in 2002 was £789 million, of which £628 million was covered by National Lottery grants and £189 million through sales of tickets etc. A surplus of £25 million over costs meant that the full lottery grant was not required. However, the £603 million of lottery money was still £204 million in excess of the original estimate of £399 million required, due to the shortfall in visitor numbers.

Shortly after it had closed, Lord Falconer reported that The Dome was costing over £1 million per month to maintain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Dome

Sadly the book of the farce with a foreword by Simon Jenkins is currently unavailable http://www.fishpond.co.uk/Books/Mill.../9780002201704

[Flosshilde]

Been offline for a couple of days and so not really had time to catch up on this thread but two things sprint to my mind (and apologies if already covered) but to make their time in jail (however short) that bit more of a punishment then perhaps they should share the same cell?

:laugh:

[Sir Velo]

I doubt it! He just thinks they're being punished for the wrong crimes:

Huhne...left power stations unbuilt and energy supply at risk, while pursuing an obsession with giving rich landowners millions of pounds of other people's money to erect senseless wind turbines. Let him answer for that.

As for Pryce...as joint head of the government economic service from 2007-10 she should account for the direst years in postwar economic policy. If ever her profession were to stand trial for its role in the credit crunch, she is surely one person who should be in the dock.

I'm not sure Jenkins thinks that. Rather he thinks that it is the desire for vengeance against public figures which is motivating the public's desire to get Huhne and Pryce; i.e. that we cannot get them for their mismanagement of public funds, so we will get them for a "trivial" offence instead. However, the alternative view I had in mind was this:

"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. I am told that elsewhere in Europe such a case would be seen by a magistrate for half an hour, with a fine and a licence suspension.

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.

Sending people to prison for "seeking to pervert the course of justice" is equally bizarre."

[jean]

I'm not sure Jenkins thinks that.

I don't suppose he thinks there was any likelihood they'd ever be punished for those 'crimes', but I'm sure he thinks they deserve to be.

Rather he thinks that it is the desire for vengeance against public figures which is motivating the public's desire to get Huhne and Pryce; i.e. that we cannot get them for their mismanagement of public funds, so we will get them for a "trivial" offence instead.

The 'public' had nothing to do with it, except insofar as Isabel Oakshott thought they'd enjoy reading her stories in the ST.

"They did what thousands do, switched points and lied."

I continue to be amazed at people who argue that because "thousands" do something, that makes it OK.