it's really sad because she could've just owned up and taken the points and pay a fine. i mean she's a politician for god's sake, she has money to pay it off. it didn't need to come to all the sophisticated lying that it did. it also paints black people (e.g. me) in a bad light, because if you become successful as a black person, especially a woman, you are under a lot of scrutiny, and some people are watching out for ur slightest mistake so they can trip u up, so you shouldn't give them that foothold. hopefully people will learn from this...
I don't know when everyone broke up for Christmas, but the jury resumed its deliberations last Wednesday and has still not returned a verdict.
I was on Jury Service and was due to to be available only until 14 Dec. I'm quite sure there were no trails continuing after that. Still, that's 7 working days of deliberation ... I don't know whether Jury's deliberate in these types of cases over a weekend ...
You mention that there seems to be something that hasn't been reported, and although you may be correct, there's usually at least a hint of those things in a newspaper article. Nothing in those 2 from local rags.
I know several people on Jury Service who've been in deliberations for about a week or so. A recent local fraud trial involved over a week of deliberations. Fraud ones are often quite complex, and I guess when there's a political angle, there's be all sorts of wranglings during deliberations.
They do not need to. She has today been gaoled for three months, so the Speaker of the House of Commons must raise a recall petition once any appeals are exhausted.
They do not need to. She has today been gaoled for three months, so the Speaker of the House of Commons must raise a recall petition once any appeals are exhausted.
I hope the good people of Peterborough get a by-election or at least vote this learned lady out come the next election.
She clearly has nothing but contempt for her constituents and the people of this country by lying to the police. Utterly disgraceful, especially for someone holding public office.
MPs are already seen as untrustworthy and slimy people. Hopefully this has put an end to her political career.
This must be referred to attorney general to review it! 3 months FFS! Chris Hume got 8 months for similar offence. She may have some health issues but 3 months is far too short, a six or seven months sentence is more reasonable.
This must be referred to attorney general to review it! 3 months FFS! Chris Hume got 8 months for similar offence. She may have some health issues but 3 months is far too short, a six or seven months sentence is more reasonable.
It's a bit difficult to see what the difference is between her case and Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce's cases - they all pleaded not guilty and they all did the same offence and in each case it was a first offence.
It's a bit difficult to see what the difference is between her case and Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce's cases - they all pleaded not guilty and they all did the same offence and in each case it was a first offence.
This was a more serious case. Remember they implicated an innocent man in the underlying offence.
It's a bit difficult to see what the difference is between her case and Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce's cases - they all pleaded not guilty and they all did the same offence and in each case it was a first offence.
This was a more serious case. Remember they implicated an innocent man in the underlying offence.
And her continuous deliberate and changing lies right up to the end: Russian man driving, fake address for that Russian, brother driving and her a passenger. In fact she was alone, driving and texting all at the same time.
It never ceases to amaze me the illegal lengths that supposedly intelligent people will go to to escape an entirely trivial matter - a speeding fine, for goodness sake! Such stupid and untrustworthy people should not be allowed to represent others on any matter whatever. She is a solicitor as well as an MP (for the time being, anyway)!
She may have a further shock: Chris Huhne was ordered to pay £78,000 in costs for his case. He at least pleaded guilty when his attempts to avoid trial had been rejected. This woman perjured herself before a jury and now intends to appeal, I believe.
You don't think the man she tried to pass the speeding conviction on to is a victim? That's great! Will you be willing to accept all my future driving convictions please?
Yes, if two parties mutually consent than it should be allowed. The queen (R) can use numerous person to represent her, then why not the defendants?