Huhne

[Sir Velo]

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

What is equally amazing is Jenkins' contention that because 10 million motorists would "consider" doing a swap this means that the public overwhelmingly thinks this is a bad law. By the latest figures, there are 30 million motorists in the UK, out of a total population of 60 million, meaning that less than 20% of the public believe this to be a bad law. However, for Jenkins, that constitutes overwhelming public disapproval.

:erm:

[ahinton]

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.

I have no desire for or interest in vengeance personally - and vengeance and justice can rarely if ever be compatible bedfellows in any case - but I am inclined to take issue with some of what you write here. For one thing, the jail sentences were more for perverting the course of justice than for exchanging speeding points. For another, do you have hard evidence as to how many "thousands" switch points? Sure, no one died, was hurt or lost money but then, had any of those things actually happened, the sentences might well have been longer in any case. Lastly, whilst setting up precedents for MPs / Lords to be treated more harshly than other citizens in such circumstances in order to make examples of taxpayer-funded lawmakers who breach the law might be fraught with danger, it sends all the wrong signals to those taxpayers when such people do flagrantly flout the law, especially when the particular breach includes perverting the course of justice.

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.

Well, that last bit might indeed have some truth in it, but an estimate based upon a survey conducted by an insurer or suggestions in reports from driver organisations are hardly the same as hard statistics on the police national computer, are they?! Whilst exceeding a speed limit is not of itself reckless or dangerous driving, it nevertheless can be so.

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

Is it? I'd thought that they'd been convicted of actually perverting it but, in any case, isn't seeking to do so the equivalent in principle to attempted murder compared to actual murder?

[ahinton]

What is equally amazing is Jenkins' contention that because 10 million motorists would "consider" doing a swap this means that the public overwhelmingly thinks this is a bad law. By the latest figures, there are 30 million motorists in the UK, out of a total population of 60 million, meaning that less than 20% of the public believe this to be a bad law. However, for Jenkins, that constitutes overwhelming public disapproval.

Well, that percentage is something of a red herring, given that not every member of the total UK population holds a drivers' licence; some elderly and disabled people don't, some simply choose not to and everyone under the age of 17 doesn't, all of whom together bring that figure down considerably. I'm not seeking to undermine the principle behind your point here, however - merely trying to inject some proportionality into it! Large numbers of people who would seriously consider knowingly breaking a certain law - assuming that they really would do so - doesn't necessarily indicate that the law concerned is flawed.

[french frank]

What is equally amazing is Jenkins' contention that because 10 million motorists would "consider" doing a swap this means that the public overwhelmingly thinks this is a bad law. By the latest figures, there are 30 million motorists in the UK, out of a total population of 60 million, meaning that less than 20% of the public believe this to be a bad law. However, for Jenkins, that constitutes overwhelming public disapproval.

:erm:

He may also take the view that not building more nuclear power stations and providing money for windfarms are much more heinous crimes than 'perverting the course of justice'. But I don't think those 'crimes' are yet on the statute book, so prosecution would have been even more bizarre.

[Pabmusic]

...I'd thought that they'd been convicted of actually perverting it but, in any case, isn't seeking to do so the equivalent in principle to attempted murder compared to actual murder?

I have always understood that you should charge "attempted" to pervert the course of justice as the attempt clearly wasn't successful, since they were caught out.

[Anna]

Vicky Pryce's solicitors said on R4's Today that they were considering an appeal, again on the grounds that she was a victim of marital coercion.
Meanwhile, Chris Huhne is having a tough time in Wandsworth according to tabloid reports. He was ridiculed on his first day in jail when a warder called him to breakfast shouting: "Order! Order!" The prison officer reportedly added over the PA system: "The right honourable member for Wandsworth North – down to the office."

Other prisoners at the south-west London jail were said to have roared with laughter as the former energy secretary went from his cell to pick up the meal. The newspapers also reported that 58-year-old Huhne has been moved to a wing for vulnerable prisoners because other convicts humiliated and bullied him. He is said to have asked to be moved to the special area after prisoners discovered he was a millionaire and badgered him for cash.

[Pabmusic]

...Meanwhile, Chris Huhne is having a tough time in Wandsworth according to tabloid reports. He was ridiculed on his first day in jail when a warder called him to breakfast shouting: "Order! Order!" The prison officer reportedly added over the PA system: "The right honourable member for Wandsworth North – down to the office."

Other prisoners at the south-west London jail were said to have roared with laughter as the former energy secretary went from his cell to pick up the meal. The newspapers also reported that 58-year-old Huhne has been moved to a wing for vulnerable prisoners because other convicts humiliated and bullied him. He is said to have asked to be moved to the special area after prisoners discovered he was a millionaire and badgered him for cash.

Very unprofessional of the prison officers if that really did occur. In fact, it's probably an internal disciplinary offence. I should expect Huhne to ask for segregation and for him to be transferred to an open prison quickly. And that's not because of his parliamentary background, but because of the type of offence, plus the fact that he is unlikely to abscond.

[Prison Officers have not been Warders since 1922. Newspapers generally refuse to acknowledge the change.]

[amateur51]

Very unprofessional of the prison officers if that really did occur. In fact, it's probably an internal disciplinary offence. I should expect Huhne to ask for segregation and for him to be transferred to an open prison quickly. And that's not because of his parliamentary background, but because of the type of offence, plus the fact that he is unlikely to abscond.

[Prison Officers have not been Warders since 1922. Newspapers generally refuse to acknowledge the change.]

I must say I read that "Order!Order!" as the very least he could expect and possibly an attempt to break the ice. I think his being tapped for cash was inevitable. Doesn't the idea of Huhne's being offered segregation run counter to the idea of his being given time to reflect on the impact of his crime. Give him a few more weeks of the opinions of his fellow citizens and then let him calm down in the quiet of a segregation space.

Huhne was a law-maker and is now a law-breaker. He must expect the public to vent its amusement at the fall from grace, I'm afraid.

[Pabmusic]

I must say I read that "Order!Order!" as the very least he could expect and possibly an attempt to break the ice. I think his being tapped for cash was inevitable. Doesn't the idea of Huhne's being offered segregation run counter to the idea of his being given time to reflect on the impact of his crime. Give him a few more weeks of the opinions of his fellow citizens and then let him calm down in the quiet of a segregation space.

Huhne was a law-maker and is now a law-breaker. He must expect the public to vent its amusement at the fall from grace, I'm afraid.

Yes - it's relatively gentle ribbing, I suppose, but not how I should expect staff to behave towards someone coming into prison for the first time - it verges upon humiliation, deliberately done - in other words, bullying; it's certainly rude and, as such, out of bounds. I'm sure prisoners will say such things - and tap him for money.

He is entitled to ask for segregation and staff have a duty to protect him and not throw him to the wolves (of course the circumstances have to be considered carefully before granting such a request). In fact, staff must segregate him (whether he wants it or not) if there are reasonable grounds to think he might be in danger or might cause danger.

As for the purpose of imprisonment, it's important to remember that people are not sent to prison in order that they can be punished while they are there (we abolished hard labour in 1948). It's the sentence itself that is considered the punishment, not the treatment by staff, who are expected to treat prisoners with humanity within the limits imposed by a secure environment.

[Sir Velo]

- but I am inclined to take issue with some of what you write here.

The fact that I prefaced these remarks with "" should indicate that these were not my words, but a quotation. :erm:

[Sir Velo]

Large numbers of people who would seriously consider knowingly breaking a certain law - assuming that they really would do so - doesn't necessarily indicate that the law concerned is flawed.

Er, that was my point. :erm:

[ahinton]

The fact that I prefaced these remarks with "" should indicate that these were not my words, but a quotation. :erm:

Indeed, but you still wrote it!

[ahinton]

Er, that was my point. :erm:

I know - and I was expressing broad agreement with it despite taking issue with another part of what you posted.

[amateur51]

Yes - it's relatively gentle ribbing, I suppose, but not how I should expect staff to behave towards someone coming into prison for the first time - it verges upon humiliation, deliberately done - in other words, bullying; it's certainly rude and, as such, out of bounds. I'm sure prisoners will say such things - and tap him for money.

He is entitled to ask for segregation and staff have a duty to protect him and not throw him to the wolves (of course the circumstances have to be considered carefully before granting such a request). In fact, staff must segregate him (whether he wants it or not) if there are reasonable grounds to think he might be in danger or might cause danger.

As for the purpose of imprisonment, it's important to remember that people are not sent to prison in order that they can be punished while they are there (we abolished hard labour in 1948). It's the sentence itself that is considered the punishment, not the treatment by staff, who are expected to treat prisoners with humanity within the limits imposed by a secure environment.

Thanks Pabs, I understood every word of that even tho your tongue was firmly in your cheek at times, I felt :biggrin:. A friend who was in prison for a couple of years told me many horror tales and the bulk of them were about the bullying behaviour of the staff particularly the points system for good and exemplary behaviour which could be withdrawn on a bullying whim. He found that if you could withstand the ribbing and boundary challenges, most people left you alone and if you showed a willingness to help people read and write letters from and to home, you could get by and even feel a sense of being protected. My friend even set up and edited a prison magazine that won prizes, which endeared him to the governor and the other inmates who saw their work in print but of course this meant that the prison officers took great delight in 'pulling him down a peg or two' :yikes:

My point about reflection stems from my watching the Channel 4 interview that Huhne gave to Garry Gibbon - he so clearly was not engaging with the impact of what he had done and why he was being sent down; he had a set line and he was sticking to it.

[Sir Velo]

Indeed, but you still wrote it!

Well, if we're going to be pedantic about it.... I didn't write it; I typed it. :winkeye: