Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on December 28, 2018, 11:00:11 PM
-
Mmm
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/28/convicted-mp-fiona-onasanya-intends-to-stay-in-parliament?CMP=twt_gu
-
What a disgrace that woman is, I am glad Labour did the decent thing and suspended her.
-
Why is she claiming that her trial and conviction for lying about a speeding ticket has a parallel in Jesus' conviction and sentencing to death?
-
What a disgrace that woman is, I am glad Labour did the decent thing and suspended her.
She did one wrong thing. That hardly makes her a disgrace. She has achieved a lot despite being disabled with MS. I think she shpould be given another chance.
-
Surely it's 2 things wrong? The speeding and the lying?
-
She did one wrong thing. That hardly makes her a disgrace. She has achieved a lot despite being disabled with MS. I think she shpould be given another chance.
I don't think she should be given another chance, what she did was very wrong indeed and she should pay for her crime.
-
I don't think she should be given another chance, what she did was very wrong indeed and she should pay for her crime.
Don't overdo the charitable forgiveness, will you?
-
Don't overdo the charitable forgiveness, will you?
It is not me who can offer her forgiveness, but the person whom she claimed had been driving the car, when it was her that was the driver.
-
It is not me who can offer her forgiveness, but the person whom she claimed had been driving the car, when it was her that was the driver.
It doesn't seem to work the other way; youseem perfectly happy to offer condemnation.
-
It doesn't seem to work the other way; youseem perfectly happy to offer condemnation.
Of course I condemn her for lying about her reckless driving by blaming someone else for it, it does her no credit at all. She certainly won't have done Labour any good because come the next election they are likely to loose the seat as it is marginal, I believe.
-
Loose seats are quite dangerous especially lavatory seats.
I think she should have another chance. She's not the only one to have lied in that way, I remember a few years ago a man doing the same, said his wife drove the car. When they split up, she spilled the beans.
She has been very good in her constituency, I think the locals will forgive her.
-
Loose seats are quite dangerous especially lavatory seats.
I think she should have another chance. She's not the only one to have lied in that way, I remember a few years ago a man doing the same, said his wife drove the car. When they split up, she spilled the beans.
She has been very good in her constituency, I think the locals will forgive her.
I think you are thinking about Chris Huhne. Do you think speeding and then lying about it, would mean you kept your job? Does it have any other impact if you are a lawmaker?
-
My job? I can't see me speeding or, if I did, lying about it, frankly. I'd probably just pay the fine as would most people. My husband was fined for speeding some years ago, he was fed up about it as he was only a little over the speed limit but it was out in the country where the traffic police are a lot hotter on speeding.
I'd keep my job, probably get some sympathy from colleagues too.
I honestly cannot understand why Fiona Onasanya lied! I can only assume she panicked. Reading up on it (& there seem to be two cases), she might have been confused about the dates on which she was driving. She's still protesting her innocence.
If she is kicked out I hope it won't be forever.
-
My job? I can't see me speeding or, if I did, lying about it, frankly. I'd probably just pay the fine as would most people. My husband was fined for speeding some years ago, he was fed up about it as he was only a little over the speed limit but it was out in the country where the traffic police are a lot hotter on speeding.
I'd keep my job, probably get some sympathy from colleagues too.
I honestly cannot understand why Fiona Onasanya lied! I can only assume she panicked. Reading up on it (& there seem to be two cases), she might have been confused about the dates on which she was driving. She's still protesting her innocence.
If she is kicked out I hope it won't be forever.
I would keep my job if I got done for speeding. The question though is whether you would keep your job if you got done for obstructing justice.
-
I honestly don't know and am glad it isn't my decision, a lot will depend on if whether colleagues believe she was lying or if she was confused about dates. She has been convicted of perverting the course of justice, that doesn't mean she did. She's due to be sentenced next month.
Chris Huhne and his ex wife did time for a few weeks in a CatD prison.
So stupid to lie about something like that, totally unnecessary. Even if he'd been banned from driving, it wouldn't have been forever.
If Fiona is banished into the wilderness, I hope she can come back eventually.
-
I honestly don't know and am glad it isn't my decision, a lot will depend on if whether colleagues believe she was lying or if she was confused about dates.
I suspect they'd bow to the court verdict - see below.
She has been convicted of perverting the course of justice, that doesn't mean she did. She's due to be sentenced next month.
Well the court seems to think she did with a threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. She can, I guess, appeal but if that isn't successful then we will take the usual route of concluding that she did lie. That's how the justice system works.
So to return to your earlier question - if she has been found guilty of perverting the course of justice and isn't successful in an appeal I think her colleagues will, quite reasonably, conclude that she was lying.
-
She did one wrong thing. That hardly makes her a disgrace.
She committed a speeding offence, which I agree is pretty minor, but then she lied about who was driving the car to the police. That is not minor. She's a solicitor and should therefore know the law. She's an MP which means she should have some integrity.
She has achieved a lot despite being disabled with MS. I think she shpould be given another chance.
By whom? The courts or her constituents? If the courts, I'm not a fan of reduced sentences for people who have "achieved a lot" and for disabled people only in extenuating circumstances. If her constituents, fine, it's up to them (as long as her custodial sentence is less than twelve months).
-
She has been convicted of perverting the course of justice, that doesn't mean she did.
Yes it does.
Or are you claiming she was wrongly convicted?
-
My job? I can't see me speeding or, if I did, lying about it, frankly. I'd probably just pay the fine as would most people. My husband was fined for speeding some years ago, he was fed up about it as he was only a little over the speed limit but it was out in the country where the traffic police are a lot hotter on speeding.
I'd keep my job, probably get some sympathy from colleagues too.
I honestly cannot understand why Fiona Onasanya lied! I can only assume she panicked. Reading up on it (& there seem to be two cases), she might have been confused about the dates on which she was driving. She's still protesting her innocence.
If she is kicked out I hope it won't be forever.
I think that woman was rightly convicted, if she is kicked out I hope she will never be permitted to crawl back in again as she lacks integrity.
-
I think that woman was rightly convicted, if she is kicked out I hope she will never be permitted to crawl back in again as she lacks integrity.
You really are a hard-hearted, bitter, vindictive old so-and-so, underneath the cheery facade, aren't you?
-
You really are a hard-hearted, bitter, vindictive old so-and-so, underneath the cheery facade, aren't you?
Coming from you that must be a compliment! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Coming from you that must be a compliment! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
That doesn't even make sense.
-
That doesn't even make sense.
I should feel honoured that you take so much notice of my contribution to this forum, it is sad you haven't anything better to do. Why don't you take a cycle ride to Mars and back, that might keep you occupied for a day or two. ;D
-
Moderators Note: As it is New Years Eve I will take the last few posts as happy banter precipitated by the thought of champagne and fireworks, but if we could amble back in the direction of parliamentary issues......
On which I'd like to say if you break the law (not speeding or adultery or other issues of that ilk) then you are not allowed to stand for 10 years after any sentence is served. It might concentrate a few minds.
-
Only if you get a custodial sentence of more than a year, I think.
-
Only if you get a custodial sentence of more than a year, I think.
I know we apparently get the politicians we deserve (although fuck knows what we've done to deserve the current shower of under achievers - and before anyone starts I mean all parties) but I do think we should be holding their toes to the fire a little bit, so no I'd be meaner than that.
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7167553/MPs-expenses-MPs-can-only-be-sacked-from-Commons-if-they-are-jailed-for-over-a-year.html
-
I know we apparently get the politicians we deserve (although fuck knows what we've done to deserve the current shower of under achievers - and before anyone starts I mean all parties) but I do think we should be holding their toes to the fire a little bit, so no I'd be meaner than that.
I think I misunderstood your post. I thought you meant that that was the case in fact, rather than that you'd like it to be the case.
-
OK. Probably me not clear enough. This is what comes of cooking with wine. There's more in me than in the casserole.... :-[
-
OK. Probably me not clear enough. This is what comes of cooking with wine. There's more in me than in the casserole.... :-[
I cook with wine. Sometimes I even add it to the food. (Pinched from a poster in the gents' bogs, the Three Horseshoes, Winkwell, Hemel Hempstead.)
-
Honestly, how do we know whether or not the woman was wrongly convicted?
I prefer to think the best of people and even if they did do something wrong, they can make up for it in the future.
Can't understand LR's vicious attitude. Does she know more than what we read in the media? Maybe she's never done anything wrong.
It's not up to us anyway, what will be will be, right or wrong. We'll see what happens next month.
-
Honestly, how do we know whether or not the woman was wrongly convicted?
I prefer to think the best of people and even if they did do something wrong, they can make up for it in the future.
Can't understand LR's vicious attitude. Does she know more than what we read in the media? Maybe she's never done anything wrong.
It's not up to us anyway, what will be will be, right or wrong. We'll see what happens next month.
I have never committed a crime.
That woman blamed someone else for her crime, I hope they send her down for more than 12 months.
-
Honestly, how do we know whether or not the woman was wrongly convicted?
Had she been acquitted how would you know whether she had been wrongly acquitted and was, in fact, guilty.
I prefer to think the best of people and even if they did do something wrong, they can make up for it in the future.
Which is exactly the approach that the law takes - firstly by presuming innocence, and then by applying the standard of proof of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The law also allows individual who have been convicted and have served their time to rejoin society and to be able to continue their lives without being barred from opportunity etc on the basis of a spent criminal conviction.
And although she would be debarred from retaining her position as an MP if sentenced to a term greater than one year, there is nothing to prevent her from standing again to be elected as an MP once her sentence was completed.
-
I have never committed a crime
I have. Would you have me locked up LR?
-
I have. Would you have me locked up LR?
It depends what you did. I would have no hesitation in contacting the police about anyone I suspected of committing a crime, including my nearest and dearest. I would expect them to report me in similar circumstances.
-
It depends what you did. I would have no hesitation in contacting the police about anyone I suspected of committing a crime, including my nearest and dearest. I would expect them to report me in similar circumstances.
I was 19 and gay. Of course I broke the law.
-
I was 19 and gay. Of course I broke the law.
As you know I don't think being gay should ever have been considered a crime, how on earth can it be wrong to love someone of the same sex? What this woman was convicted of was very wrong indeed, especially as she blamed another person for it.
-
As you know I don't think being gay should ever have been considered a crime, how on earth can it be wrong to love someone of the same sex?
So you would only report crimes that you agree with?
-
You're unkind LR. God help anyone related to you who ever commits a crime.
Why do you think Fiona O should serve more than a year in prison? Even if she did speed and lie about it, nobody died. You seem to get pleasure out of things like this. I don't, I hate even the thought of it and tend to believe, when people make mistakes, that they panic and don't really mean to do it. It's called being human.
You are mean in the extreme, I can see you rubbing your hands in glee - as well as feeling self righteous because you've never done anything wrong. Get out more, God help you.
-
As you know I don't think being gay should ever have been considered a crime, how on earth can it be wrong to love someone of the same sex? What this woman was convicted of was very wrong indeed, especially as she blamed another person for it.
Plenty of people in the past would have taken the view that it was a crime, therefore I should have been locked up. I think why Robbie is getting so upset with your attitude (correct me if I'm wrong Robbie) is that you seem so unyielding in your viewpoint. Black and white if you like.
Which reminds me of:
https://youtu.be/SubpzqswJRE
Just the correct amount of melancholy for the New year I feel.
-
You're right Trent. I can't bear inflexibility.
However if LR had been out in the world a bit more, going to work and mixing with lots of people, she might see things differently. If you only surround yourself with 'outwardly respectable' people, you won't know anything about real life. Oh, she loves to pounce and blame! I hate it.
I'd better go because this has upset me and it's rare that I feel angry.
Hope everyone has a good new year/hogmanay.
-
I've just been reading a review of 'Sometimes I Lie' by Alice Feeney & am going to buy it. I don't know why I hadn't heard of it. Looks exciting. Apparently a television broadcasting outfit have bought the right to make a tv series, for a huge sum. I wondered if anybody else here has read the book.
However I was drawn to the title because of this thread. Was thinking of sending Fiona O a copy, belated Christmas present. Would she 'get' the irony I wonder.
-
You're unkind LR. God help anyone related to you who ever commits a crime.
Why do you think Fiona O should serve more than a year in prison? Even if she did speed and lie about it, nobody died. You seem to get pleasure out of things like this. I don't, I hate even the thought of it and tend to believe, when people make mistakes, that they panic and don't really mean to do it. It's called being human.
You are mean in the extreme, I can see you rubbing your hands in glee - as well as feeling self righteous because you've never done anything wrong. Get out more, God help you.
You are a silly woman! ::) It is wrong not to report a person for committing a crime, it is a crime not to do so, and one could be charged with being an accessory.
-
You are a silly woman! ::) It is wrong not to report a person for committing a crime, it is a crime not to do so, and one could be charged with being an accessory.
There is no general legal requirement to report a crime.
I recommend you read Hugo's Les Misérables or watch one of the various adaptations currently available. There can be a huge difference between legality and morality.
-
Yes, I don't think it's a crime not to report something suspicious, the exception being terrorism, and for some people, child abuse, e.g., teachers. Of course, one issue is that you don't know something is a crime, and the general public is not expected to make that assessment. If I see a guy climbing in a window, he might be locked out.
-
Had she been acquitted how would you know whether she had been wrongly acquitted and was, in fact, guilty.
Which is exactly the approach that the law takes - firstly by presuming innocence, and then by applying the standard of proof of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The law also allows individual who have been convicted and have served their time to rejoin society and to be able to continue their lives without being barred from opportunity etc on the basis of a spent criminal conviction.
And although she would be debarred from retaining her position as an MP if sentenced to a term greater than one year, there is nothing to prevent her from standing again to be elected as an MP once her sentence was completed.
Given the miscarriages of justice we hear about, and claims that our justice system and police cannot cope with the workload of investigating crimes, dealing with admin, looking at every piece of evidence, talking to every witness and given that human error or bias or weakness affects judicial outcomes, I would not automatically assume guilt if someone is convicted or innocence if there is lack of evidence or an acquittal. The person may be deemed by society to be guilty or innocent....until an appeal, another appeal, new evidence or witnesses coming to light etc etc ...but individuals in society may privately have their own opinions.
In this particular case, it sounds as if she is guilty if the person she and her brother named as the driver was abroad at the time of the offence - that's a well known scam to put down the name of someone who is abroad as people think the police either won't bother writing abroad or won't follow it up if they don't get a response. She would not have expected that the police would go to the effort of pinpointing the position of her mobile phone and identifying it as having been in the car at the time of the offence. You are required to think very carefully before filling in the form to name the driver so I don't buy the idea that she made a mistake. I think she just thought it was not a big deal to lie on the form.
I have been in a situation where I was asked who was driving my car after it was photographed speeding in an area near my house that had changed its speed limits due to road works while my dad and I had both been out of the country. It could have been me or it could have been my dad - my dad got back to the UK first and had my car but he came to pick me up and return the car and I was going to drop him home. In the few weeks between this routine drive and the notice of intended prosecution, we honestly could not remember if we had swapped drivers once he arrived to return the car. He's my dad and I had just got home after a flight - he may have felt fatherly and wanted to drive himself home with me as passenger and then have me drive myself back, or I might have felt daughterly and wanted to drive my dad home, as he is in his mid-70s and I know he doesn't enjoy driving like he used to when he was younger.
-
Yes, I don't think it's a crime not to report something suspicious, the exception being terrorism, and for some people, child abuse, e.g., teachers. Of course, one issue is that you don't know something is a crime, and the general public is not expected to make that assessment. If I see a guy climbing in a window, he might be locked out.
If I saw someone climbing through a window I would be suspicious and inform the police, just in case it was a burglar.
-
If I saw someone climbing through a window I would be suspicious and inform the police, just in case it was a burglar.
So would any responsible person, but there are more equivocal, borderline cases. Would you report an illegal immigrant who might have escaped poverty and oppression in their home country, or a shoplifter in Tesco who might be stealing food because they are unemployed and desperate?
-
or a shoplifter in Tesco who might be stealing food because they are unemployed and desperate?
I was thinking about this as, maybe a year ago, I saw a young woman clearly concealing goods in her coat in Tesco's. The goods were sanitary towels, or some such item from that aisle. I didn't do anything about it. Why should I? The woman was clearly not well off and while ever we have a government who are not willing to take tax avoidance by the likes of Amazon etc, seriously when they know it exists, who am I to get some desperate woman into even more difficulties than she is already in.
I know, some, LR probably, will think that I'm a bleeding heart liberal or something. I'm not. I'm just sick of the people who are poorest getting the blame.
I can't remember the figures but much more money is put into "regulating" benefits than is put into investigating the tax avoidance, crimes carried out by the very rich in society, be they individuals or corporations. It stinks.
-
I was thinking about this as, maybe a year ago, I saw a young woman clearly concealing goods in her coat in Tesco's. The goods were sanitary towels, or some such item from that aisle. I didn't do anything about it. Why should I? The woman was clearly not well off and while ever we have a government who are not willing to take tax avoidance by the likes of Amazon etc, seriously when they know it exists, who am I to get some desperate woman into even more difficulties than she is already in.
I know, some, LR probably, will think that I'm a bleeding heart liberal or something. I'm not. I'm just sick of the people who are poorest getting the blame.
I can't remember the figures but much more money is put into "regulating" benefits than is put into investigating the tax avoidance, crimes carried out by the very rich in society, be they individuals or corporations. It stinks.
Quite - besides which, stealing from a major supermarket chain such as Tesco or Asda is pretty much a victimless crime, since the big chains can easily afford the loss, and in fact budget for a certain amount of loss due to theft, because, on an annual basis, it is fairly accurately predictable. We all pay slightly more for stuff because of the light-fingered, but no individual suffers significantly. I'm not excusing it, but as crimes go, it's pretty low on the wickedness scale.
-
So would any responsible person, but there are more equivocal, borderline cases. Would you report an illegal immigrant who might have escaped poverty and oppression in their home country, or a shoplifter in Tesco who might be stealing food because they are unemployed and desperate?
I would report a shoplifter, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. As for illegal immigrants as sorry as I feel for the genuine ones, they are in danger of being exploited by the bad guys and treated as slaves, so I would alert the authorities in the hope their welfare should be taken into consideration if deportation is on the cards.
-
So much for the season of goodwill.
-
Only if you get a custodial sentence of more than a year, I think.
That's the rule and if she went by the letter of it, I'd accept her decision, especially if her constituency party and her constituents are OK with it, but she has been convicted of lying to law enforcement officials, I'm not sure that looks particularly good on the CV of a Member of Parliament, never mind a solicitor.
-
There is no general legal requirement to report a crime.
That is correct, but irrelevant to the current case. While there may be no legal requirement to report a crime there is a legal requirement not to lie to police during inquiries into a crime. So specifically, although there may be no requirement for someone speeding to fess up to the police, there is a requirement for them not to lie if their car was caught speeding and the police ask whether they were driving the car at the time.
For the record, I doubt she will get a custodial sentence of a year or more. Most likely a few months, as was the case for Chris Huhne who was sentenced to 8 months.
-
So much for the season of goodwill.
So do you think that the judicial system should be more lenient at one time of the year than at another, noting of course that when a case is heard and perhaps when sentencing occurs is a pretty random event in relation to when the original offence actually occurred.
So if you believe in seasonal leniency, should that be linked to the date when the offence occurred or the date when the sentence is handed down.
Of course this is all non-sense - the judicial system should be the same throughout the year.
-
So do you think that the judicial system should be more lenient at one time of the year than at another, noting of course that when a case is heard and perhaps when sentencing occurs is a pretty random event in relation to when the original offence actually occurred.
So if you believe in seasonal leniency, should that be linked to the date when the offence occurred or the date when the sentence is handed down.
Of course this is all non-sense - the judicial system should be the same throughout the year.
I think Oliphants response was to LR's preceding post rather than a comment on the entirety of the subject.
-
So do you think that the judicial system should be more lenient at one time of the year than at another, noting of course that when a case is heard and perhaps when sentencing occurs is a pretty random event in relation to when the original offence actually occurred.
So if you believe in seasonal leniency, should that be linked to the date when the offence occurred or the date when the sentence is handed down.
Of course this is all non-sense - the judicial system should be the same throughout the year.
so you got a good deal on New Year straw obviously.
-
I think Oliphants response was to LR's preceding post rather than a comment on the entirety of the subject.
Perhaps so, but it isn't clear from his post, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to clarify whether he thinks that the judicial system should be more lenient at this time of the year, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of his post.
-
Perhaps so, but it isn't clear from his post, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to clarify whether he thinks that the judicial system should be more lenient at this time of the year, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of his post.
Well as I say, I thought it was fairly obvious he was reacting to LR's position on the subject. I don't think he was even suggesting seasonal leniency. Just leniency for those that perhaps deserve it but don't always get it.
-
Perhaps so, but it isn't clear from his post, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to clarify whether he thinks that the judicial system should be more lenient at this time of the year, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of his post.
Except that isn't what you did. You imperfectly unreasonably created a whole position for him with no evidence and no question mark which would be how you might do 'clarification '.
-
Perhaps so, but it isn't clear from his post, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to clarify whether he thinks that the judicial system should be more lenient at this time of the year, which is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of his post.
I think it was pretty clear that I was referring to LR's attitude.
-
That is correct, but irrelevant to the current case. While there may be no legal requirement to report a crime there is a legal requirement not to lie to police during inquiries into a crime. So specifically, although there may be no requirement for someone speeding to fess up to the police, there is a requirement for them not to lie if their car was caught speeding and the police ask whether they were driving the car at the time.
For the record, I doubt she will get a custodial sentence of a year or more. Most likely a few months, as was the case for Chris Huhne who was sentenced to 8 months.
Well I was replying to LR's general (off topic) post.
On this specific case, I expect Fiona Onasanya will serve a couple of months as you suggest. IMO, based on the press reports, rightly so.
I knew and liked Chris Huhne when he was the MP for my area, but do not think it is is acceptable for someone convicted for attempting to pervert the course of justice to continue as an MP.
-
Well as I say, I thought it was fairly obvious he was reacting to LR's position on the subject. I don't think he was even suggesting seasonal leniency. Just leniency for those that perhaps deserve it but don't always get it.
Seems to me that OC was not taking any position but just issuing a pointless comment to piss off LR.
-
Seems to me that OC was not taking any position but just issuing a pointless comment to piss off LR.
In that post I'd agree, but the context of the discussion was such that LR had a very fixed idea over punishment whereas OC tended to a more lenient approach, which lead to the curt reply.
-
I think it was pretty clear that I was referring to LR's attitude.
Thanks for clarifying, but no it wasn't clear what you meant which was why I felt the need to ask. The lack of clarify wasn't helped by the fact that your comment was not in response to a specific comment by another poster - i.e. no 'quote' from a previous reply.
And you actually haven't answered my question and I'd be grateful if you would as I remain confused as to the relevance of the 'season'. So please can you tell me whether you think that the judicial system should be more lenient at one time of the year than at another.
-
In that post I'd agree, but the context of the discussion was such that LR had a very fixed idea over punishment whereas OC tended to a more lenient approach, which lead to the curt reply.
Which returns us to the notion of the 'season'. Even if directed specifically at LR's fixed ideas over punishment - referring to the season of goodwill implies (certainly to me) that LR's views should be more moderated (i.e. more lenient in legal terms) at this particular time of year. So, in effect, that it's OK to want to 'lock em up and throw away the key' in June (as it isn't the season of goodwill), but not so during the season of goodwill.
Alternatively he was just marking a snarky comment to rile LR - and that certainly seems to have worked in spades (noting the thread on the General Discussion section) - so much for the season of goodwill in that respect.
-
Thanks for clarifying, but no it wasn't clear what you meant which was why I felt the need to ask. The lack of clarify wasn't helped by the fact that your comment was not in response to a specific comment by another poster - i.e. no 'quote' from a previous reply.
And you actually haven't answered my question and I'd be grateful if you would as I remain confused as to the relevance of the 'season'. So please can you tell me whether you think that the judicial system should be more lenient at one time of the year than at another.
No, of course not.
-
PD
Re: #64
I thought it was not difficult to understand. You quote a post or name a specific poster and/or post # if you are addressing the person who posted and making specific points about what they said. You use the Reply button if you don’t really want a one to one conversation with the poster but just want to comment on what you thought of the previous post.
LR said she would alert the police or authorities if she saw someone shoplifting after it was pointed out that the shoplifter could be doing it out of need because they are poor. Christmas is traditionally considered the season of goodwill and LR posted her comment at Christmas and OC’s reply was that LR’s post did not reflect the traditional idea of magnanimity or generosity associated with the season.
Not seeing where judicial sentencing comes into LR’s comment that she would alert the authorities or OC’s reply, commenting on LR’s post.
-
PD
Re: #64
I thought it was not difficult to understand. You quote a post or name a specific poster and/or post # if you are addressing the person who posted and making specific points about what they said. You use the Reply button if you don’t really want a one to one conversation with the poster but just want to comment on what you thought of the previous post.
LR said she would alert the police or authorities if she saw someone shoplifting after it was pointed out that the shoplifter could be doing it out of need because they are poor. Christmas is traditionally considered the season of goodwill and LR posted her comment at Christmas and OC’s reply was that LR’s post did not reflect the traditional idea of magnanimity or generosity associated with the season.
Not seeing where judicial sentencing comes into LR’s comment that she would alert the authorities or OC’s reply, commenting on LR’s post.
Exactemundo.
-
Which returns us to the notion of the 'season'. Even if directed specifically at LR's fixed ideas over punishment - referring to the season of goodwill implies (certainly to me) that LR's views should be more moderated (i.e. more lenient in legal terms) at this particular time of year. So, in effect, that it's OK to want to 'lock em up and throw away the key' in June (as it isn't the season of goodwill), but not so during the season of goodwill.
Alternatively he was just marking a snarky comment to rile LR - and that certainly seems to have worked in spades (noting the thread on the General Discussion section) - so much for the season of goodwill in that respect.
People make snarky comments to rile each other up on here all the time. LR doesn’t get any worse comments than anyone else. No one is forced to stay but many do despite the comments. Some people, when taking a break from the forum, prefer to write a farewell post and then come back when they’ve cooled down.
I’ve lost count of the number of times LR has written a farewell post and then come back.
-
No, of course not.
So why would you expect Little Roses to take a more lenient view of sentencing at Christmas time, if you do not believe that yourself?
-
So why would you expect Little Roses to take a more lenient view of sentencing at Christmas time, if you do not believe that yourself?
Oh ffs! It was a throwaway sarky comment!
-
Oh ffs! It was a throwaway sarky comment!
Yes it was, but, as is often is the case, the debate about it has overtaken the thread.
-
Yes it was, but, as is often is the case, the debate about it has overtaken the thread.
Entirely due to your nit-picking obsessiverness.
-
Entirely due to your nit-picking obsessiverness.
There we have another ... do you actually have anything other than snide personal comments to contribute?
-
Entirely due to your nit-picking obsessiverness.
Let me nit pick that post a bit....
I posted two comments early on directly related to the topic of the thread. Then it got derailed by the responses to your comments about Little Roses' views on crimes and punishment. Then just this morning, I posted a comment in response to your claim that you do not believe British justice should depend on the time of year (I am making an assumption that your "no, of course not" refers to that: apologies if my assumption is wrong).
Anyway, I don't see how this derail can be entirely due to my nit picking.
-
New year wrangling about nothing, hope this thread doesn't turn into another treadmill like 'Searching for God'!
Frequently people are put into prison for relatively minor offences, not violent or intimidating, no possession of weapons, no grand larceny, usually stupid, opportunist and amateurish petty crimes, sometimes a drug related, resulting in short sentences. So they only do a few weeks in prison. However so many of the petty criminals have girlfriends and babies whose lives are turned upside down for those few weeks, no money, no support - it takes weeks to sort out benefits & it's not their fault their partner committed a crime. It would surely be far more beneficial to the perpetrators, their family and society in general to put them on tag and arrange for them to do some community service. Then they would still be able to give support to their dependents (I used men as an example above because I have experience of young mothers whose boyfriends have been incarcerated and more men go to prison than women but of course there are women who offend too).
Fiona Onasanya does not have children but she is the sort of person who is committed to fight injustice which would surely include the families of prisoners.
The crime for which she is convicted is lying. Compared to the 'minor' crimes of the people I talked about above, it is nothing. Not worth a custodial sentence, she will do more good making a positive contribution to society.
In short, it's my belief is that custodial sentences should be reserved for serious offences.
-
The crime for which she is convicted is lying.
... to the police.
Compared to the 'minor' crimes of the people I talked about above, it is nothing.
No it isn't nothing. It necessarily carries quite a heavy penalty because otherwise everybody would do it to escape minor offences.
Furthermore, she is a solicitor and an MP. She should know how serious it is to pervert the course of justice.
-
New year wrangling about nothing, hope this thread doesn't turn into another treadmill like 'Searching for God'!
Frequently people are put into prison for relatively minor offences, not violent or intimidating, no possession of weapons, no grand larceny, usually stupid, opportunist and amateurish petty crimes, sometimes a drug related, resulting in short sentences. So they only do a few weeks in prison. However so many of the petty criminals have girlfriends and babies whose lives are turned upside down for those few weeks, no money, no support - it takes weeks to sort out benefits & it's not their fault their partner committed a crime. It would surely be far more beneficial to the perpetrators, their family and society in general to put them on tag and arrange for them to do some community service. Then they would still be able to give support to their dependents (I used men as an example above because I have experience of young mothers whose boyfriends have been incarcerated and more men go to prison than women but of course there are women who offend too).
Fiona Onasanya does not have children but she is the sort of person who is committed to fight injustice which would surely include the families of prisoners.
The crime for which she is convicted is lying. Compared to the 'minor' crimes of the people I talked about above, it is nothing. Not worth a custodial sentence, she will do more good making a positive contribution to society.
In short, it's my belief is that custodial sentences should be reserved for serious offences.
Eh? This rather an odd post. People in positions of trust should be held even more to account for such things compared to everyone else. If you can't trust them in the little things how can you trust them in the big things?
-
I take yours and Jeremy's points of view on board and understand them. I just do not see how a short prison term will achieve anything. My view is another type of punishment would be more appropriate and might even do some good.
However it's not up to us. I'm quite interested to see how it pans out. I know originally her brother said he was driving the car then later said he wasn't on that particular date. She might appeal. So let's wait and see.
-
PD
Re: #64
I thought it was not difficult to understand. You quote a post or name a specific poster and/or post # if you are addressing the person who posted and making specific points about what they said. You use the Reply button if you don’t really want a one to one conversation with the poster but just want to comment on what you thought of the previous post.
I think it is usual etiquette to specifically quote a proviso post (and therefore the earlier comments) when you are specifically addressing the comments of an individual poster, as would appear to be the case here following OC's clarification. Simply 'replying' without quoting a previous post implies a general comment relating to the topic of the thread.
It would appear, following clarification, that OC was replying specifically to LR's previous post and would have been better to include that quote.
The point is that is wasn't clear what OC was meaning in his post and therefore perfectly reasonable for me to request clarification. I wasn't the only one who appears to have been somewhat confused.
-
R said she would alert the police or authorities if she saw someone shoplifting after it was pointed out that the shoplifter could be doing it out of need because they are poor. Christmas is traditionally considered the season of goodwill and LR posted her comment at Christmas and OC’s reply was that LR’s post did not reflect the traditional idea of magnanimity or generosity associated with the season.
Which rather confirms my comment, albeit I was referring to seasonally-lenient sentencing rather than an approach to witnessing shop lifting.
The inference of your comment (please correct me if I am wrong) is that you should take a different approach if you see a shop lifter in the Xmas period to, lets say for sake of argument, mid February. Now this is due to it being the 'season of goodwill' and nothing to do with the motivation of the shop lifter that might be identical in mid Feb to late Dec.
So you appear to be implying that under identical circumstances (a shop lifter who may, or may not, be being driven by need) that you should decide to be more understanding (i.e. not referring them to the authorities) at Xmas that in mid Feb - when you should refer them to the authorities because it isn't the season of goodwill.
So exactly the point I was making, albeit in slightly different circumstances. To me the notion that you'd take a different approach to witnessing a shoplifter in late Dec than mid Feb because it is the season of goodwill, all other things being equal, seems bonkers.
-
The crime for which she is convicted is lying.
No it isn't, it is perverting the course of justice. In most cases lying is not illegal (albeit may be unethical). When someone lies in an attempt to prevent justice being served by frustrating a police investigation then that is a serious matter and should be treated as such. And it makes no difference whether the original offence was serious or not - indeed quite the reverse.
Where an offence is very serious a charge of perverting the course of justice is of limited deterrent if the person thinks it may help them avoid conviction. In the case of a more minor offence it is important to ensure that the consequences of perverting the course of justice is significantly greater than the original offence to act as a deterrent. It is important that individuals do not think they can get off minor offences by lying through their teeth and frustrating the investigation. And the only way to achieve this is to ensure that the consequences of perverting the course of justice are appropriately severe.
-
People make snarky comments to rile each other up on here all the time. LR doesn’t get any worse comments than anyone else. No one is forced to stay but many do despite the comments. Some people, when taking a break from the forum, prefer to write a farewell post and then come back when they’ve cooled down.
Don't you think that there is something a tad hypocritical though about someone making a deliberately sarky comment (that's what OC said it was) about another poster's attitude while in effect accusing that post of failing to recognise the season of goodwill. If you are going to accuse others of lacking goodwill then perhaps best to be beyond reproach in the goodwill stakes yourself.
-
In short, it's my belief is that custodial sentences should be reserved for serious offences.
Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence.
-
No, of course not.
Yet in your response to Gabriella 'Exactemundo' you seem to be implying that you should take a different approach to witnessing shoplifting at a certain time of year that at another time of year because it is the season of goodwill.
So perhaps you'd be kind enough to answer the following: Should you take a different approach to witnessing a shoplifter in late Dec (because it is the season of goodwill) than mid Feb, all other things being equal.
-
Which rather confirms my comment, albeit I was referring to seasonally-lenient sentencing rather than an approach to witnessing shop lifting.
The inference of your comment (please correct me if I am wrong) is that you should take a different approach if you see a shop lifter in the Xmas period to, lets say for sake of argument, mid February. Now this is due to it being the 'season of goodwill' and nothing to do with the motivation of the shop lifter that might be identical in mid Feb to late Dec.
So you appear to be implying that under identical circumstances (a shop lifter who may, or may not, be being driven by need) that you should decide to be more understanding (i.e. not referring them to the authorities) at Xmas that in mid Feb - when you should refer them to the authorities because it isn't the season of goodwill.
So exactly the point I was making, albeit in slightly different circumstances. To me the notion that you'd take a different approach to witnessing a shoplifter in late Dec than mid Feb because it is the season of goodwill, all other things being equal, seems bonkers.
Taking a more understanding approach during the season of goodwill might sound bonkers but it's a well-known tradition or saying, hence I found OC's comment mildly funny when it referred to LR's comment.
I actually didn't read OC's comment as taking a different approach to reporting shop-lifting depending on the season, though it could be interpreted it that way. I understood the "season" as referring to the season when LR wrote her comment, which is why I found the comment mildly amusing.
She wrote her comment during the season of goodwill, so I understood it to mean that during the season of goodwill you express goodwill/ joy to your fellow man by being more charitable or understanding e.g. by not writing a post that you would report a shoplifter who was stealing out of need and poverty. But when it is no longer the season of goodwill, you might be more inclined to express such views on a forum. OC was not being serious that LR should not express her views at Christmas - it was a sarky comment for the amusement of people who find such things amusing.
Incidentally, in reference to another post of mine, do you automatically consider that if a court finds someone innocent or guilty the verdict must be correct? I often still remain "don't know" and I think whether I privately see someone as innocent or guilty is somewhat arbitrary and changeable - though it depends to some extent on what I happen to have read about the case.
-
Don't you think that there is something a tad hypocritical though about someone making a deliberately sarky comment (that's what OC said it was) about another poster's attitude while in effect accusing that post of failing to recognise the season of goodwill. If you are going to accuse others of lacking goodwill then perhaps best to be beyond reproach in the goodwill stakes yourself.
It may be hypocritical but it wouldn't be funny if you couldn't say "so much for the season of goodwill" because you were worried about being hypocritical.
Sometimes it's a shame to miss out on the opportunity to be sarky, unless someone is going to be very sensitive about it, which you aren't going to know until after you make the comment. If someone had said that about me, I probably would have laughed and also felt a bit irritated.
-
I actually didn't read OC's comment as taking a different approach to reporting shop-lifting depending on the season, though it could be interpreted it that way.
That's certainly how I read it and your appear to have done so too in your comment below:
'LR said she would alert the police or authorities if she saw someone shoplifting after it was pointed out that the shoplifter could be doing it out of need because they are poor. Christmas is traditionally considered the season of goodwill and LR posted her comment at Christmas and OC’s reply was that LR’s post did not reflect the traditional idea of magnanimity or generosity associated with the season.'
But fair enough if you did not mean it.
However useful to get your answer to the question I posed to OC: Should you take a different approach to witnessing a shoplifter in late Dec (because it is the season of goodwill) than mid Feb, all other things being equal.
-
Incidentally, in reference to another post of mine, do you automatically consider that if a court finds someone innocent or guilty the verdict must be correct? I often still remain "don't know" and I think whether I privately see someone as innocent or guilty is somewhat arbitrary and changeable - though it depends to some extent on what I happen to have read about the case.
I'm certainly mindful of the fact that a verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, could be wrong. However, unless I actually have personal knowledge of the details of the case it is best to accept that those actually making the decision on the basis of the evidence (the Jury) are the best arbiters of the truth at that time. And certainly in legal terms we should consider the verdict to be correct until or unless proven legally to be otherwise, for example through a successful appeal or re-trial.
-
hence I found OC's comment mildly funny when it referred to LR's comment.
We clearly have different senses of humour. OC's comment - sarky, snide - yes. Funny - nope.
-
That's certainly how I read it and your appear to have done so too in your comment below:
'LR said she would alert the police or authorities if she saw someone shoplifting after it was pointed out that the shoplifter could be doing it out of need because they are poor. Christmas is traditionally considered the season of goodwill and LR posted her comment at Christmas and OC’s reply was that LR’s post did not reflect the traditional idea of magnanimity or generosity associated with the season.'
But fair enough if you did not mean it.
When I wrote it, the key points in my mind was the bit where I wrote "LR said" at the start and "Christmas is traditionally considered the season of goodwill and LR posted her comment at Christmas" and also I wrote "LR's post did not reflect.." towards the end. I can see why you focused on the bit about "alert the police or authorities" and just goes to show how different posters see different bits of a post as the key point being made and miss other stuff.
However useful to get your answer to the question I posed to OC: Should you take a different approach to witnessing a shoplifter in late Dec (because it is the season of goodwill) than mid Feb, all other things being equal.
Should you? No.
But you might still take a more lenient approach regardless of whether you should or not, because you are influenced by your feelings and perceptions, and that might include feeling more understanding, charitable, upbeat because of the holiday season or some other reason.
-
Incidentally, in reference to another post of mine, do you automatically consider that if a court finds someone innocent or guilty the verdict must be correct? I often still remain "don't know" and I think whether I privately see someone as innocent or guilty is somewhat arbitrary and changeable - though it depends to some extent on what I happen to have read about the case.
I'm sure someone will correct if I am wrong, but it has always been my belief that - at least in English Law - courts do not find people innocent. They find them not guilty. They do so for precisely the reason considered by Gabriella. The test in English Law is whether guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. This implies that someone found not guilty is not necessarily innocent - it just has not been possible to fully establish guilt.
I believe that jurisdictions descended from Napoleonic Law tend to take a different view and Scottish Law (descended from Roman Law) includes not proven as a permissable verdict.
Additional comment
Until relatively recently, it was not possible in England and Wales for a person to be tried a second time for the an offence for which they had been found not guilty. This has now been changed and suspects may be tried twice (or more times) for a specific offence. There have been occasional instances of second trials where fresh evidence (eg DNA) comes to light in serious cases.
-
I'm certainly mindful of the fact that a verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, could be wrong. However, unless I actually have personal knowledge of the details of the case it is best to accept that those actually making the decision on the basis of the evidence (the Jury) are the best arbiters of the truth at that time. And certainly in legal terms we should consider the verdict to be correct until or unless proven legally to be otherwise, for example through a successful appeal or re-trial.
I see so much evidence of people's bias and read so much about information that is suppressed because of a legal technicality, that I can't agree with your assessment of a court verdict. It's about what can be proved and how much doubt can be created rather than the truth IMO.
-
I'm sure someone will correct if I am wrong, but it has always been my belief that - at least in English Law - courts do not find people innocent. They find them not guilty. They do so for precisely the reason considered by Gabriella. The test in English Law is whether guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. This implies that someone found not guilty is not necessarily innocent - it just has not been possible to fully establish guilt.
I believe that jurisdictions descended from Napoleonic Law tend to take a different view and Scottish Law (descended from Roman Law) includes not proven as a permissable verdict.
Good point. I should have phrased it differently to say "guilty" or "not guilty" rather than "innocent".
-
I see so much evidence of people's bias and read so much about information that is suppressed because of a legal technicality, that I can't agree with your assessment of a court verdict. It's about what can be proved and how much doubt can be created rather than the truth IMO.
What I said was that those actually making the decision on the basis of the evidence (the Jury) are the best arbiters of the truth at that time. They are the ones who have seen the evidence, been party to the cross examination of the accused, victims, witnesses etc. I didn't say they are always right, but they are in the best position to make the right decision. Certainly better than you or I who have likely one seen snippets of evidence provided through the prism of the media.
Also, don't forget that a jury is 12 people and therefore it is unlikely that the individual biases of one can affect the verdict of all.
-
Should you? No.
But you might still take a more lenient approach regardless of whether you should or not, because you are influenced by your feelings and perceptions, and that might include feeling more understanding, charitable, upbeat because of the holiday season or some other reason.
But surely justice needs to be provided in a fair and consistent manner. Any situation where an individual decides to be more lenient, cos its Christmas, or less lenient because they have had a shitty day is not consistent with fair justice.
So you are correct that some people will fluctuate in their levels of leniency due to personal reasons - but they shouldn't.
-
I just do not see how a short prison term will achieve anything.
It's part of how you convey the fact that it is a serious crime to the general population. You can't say "it's a serious crime to do x" and then let people off with a lesser punishment. Furthermore, how would you feel if you got sent down for the same offence but somebody else got off just because they were an MP and a pillar of the community?
My view is another type of punishment would be more appropriate and might even do some good.
That may be true but what punishment do you suggest that is as serious as a custodial sentence? Note that she could get away with a fine, although the minimum recommendation is four months.
-
Also, don't forget that a jury is 12 people and therefore it is unlikely that the individual biases of one can affect the verdict of all.
Hmmm....I'm sure you could make a film about that.
-
I honestly don't know what sort of punishment I would give her, if that was my decision. I certainly don't think she should have special treatment because she's an MP but I can't see how any of us will be better off for her going to prison. Though it is possible for people to do a lot of good work in prison, advising and helping others! Could be seen as an opportunity.....perhaps.
Then there's the gardening and milking cows (HMP Ford in Sussex) ;).
-
I think that one problem associated with prison is that there appears to be no clear statement of its objectives and no clear evaluation of its effectiveness. The primary purposes of imprisonment are probably punishment (by removing wrong-doers from normal everyday life and forcing them to exist in an impoverished and unstimulating environment) and ensuring public safety (by ridding society of people who would do it harm). A third objective is possibly that of retraining and re-education so that they will be less likely to re-offend.
My guess is that the third of these objectives is the least likely to be pursued. I recall reading, last year that whereas UK prisons are bursting, the Dutch prison population is falling. As a result of the education facilities in Dutch prisons recidivision is falling in the Netherlands and fewer people are going to prison.
I fear that the UK is using the models and systems of the USA in order to cope with convicted criminals. In the USA prisons are like warehouses where convicts are housed for a very long time.
-
What I said was that those actually making the decision on the basis of the evidence (the Jury) are the best arbiters of the truth at that time. They are the ones who have seen the evidence, been party to the cross examination of the accused, victims, witnesses etc. I didn't say they are always right, but they are in the best position to make the right decision. Certainly better than you or I who have likely one seen snippets of evidence provided through the prism of the media.
Also, don't forget that a jury is 12 people and therefore it is unlikely that the individual biases of one can affect the verdict of all.
They have seen the evidence they are permitted to see.
Due to police cuts, lack of manpower, an incompetent lawyer, mistaken witnesses or experts that are believed, discredited witnesses or experts who should be believed, or numerous other reasons there could be evidence that would create a different truth from the one opposing lawyers are trying to sell them.
Bias is just one factor. Hence, I reserve my judgement abut judicial outcomes. I might have mentioned before that I was involved in a civil case where the defendant was committing perjury in court, and in the middle of his perjured testimony on the stand, asked if he could take a break as he was fasting and it was Ramadan and he had to break his fast with a date and water as it was sunset. That little act may have influenced the judge. Anyway, he won the case as the judge found him more believable.
My husband was a witness for the plaintiff, based on meetings he had with the two parties together at his office (as their accountant) about their informal partnership. One of the claims of the defendant was that no business meetings had ever taken place with my husband and the plaintiff, and that he had never been involved in any informal partnership with the plaintiff.
-
I think that one problem associated with prison is that there appears to be no clear statement of its objectives and no clear evaluation of its effectiveness. The primary purposes of imprisonment are probably punishment (by removing wrong-doers from normal everyday life and forcing them to exist in an impoverished and unstimulating environment) and ensuring public safety (by ridding society of people who would do it harm). A third objective is possibly that of retraining and re-education so that they will be less likely to re-offend.
My guess is that the third of these objectives is the least likely to be pursued. I recall reading, last year that whereas UK prisons are bursting, the Dutch prison population is falling. As a result of the education facilities in Dutch prisons recidivision is falling in the Netherlands and fewer people are going to prison.
I fear that the UK is using the models and systems of the USA in order to cope with convicted criminals. In the USA prisons are like warehouses where convicts are housed for a very long time.
Exactly!
_______
Gabriella, that was interesting. I'm sure people lie in court all the time and sometimes it works for them as long as they aren't caught out. Jurors and judges are only human too.
-
Hi Robbie
Exactly!
Prison sometimes/often doesn't seem fit for purpose in the UK, given the violence and drugs. If women's prisons are as bad as men's prisons on the drugs and violence, I would agree with you that there shouldn't be a custodial sentence for obstructing justice in speeding cases. But, I know of a couple of people who have lied on those forms about who was driving, and the risk of a prison sentence might just be one of the few things that deter them from repeatedly speeding and repeatedly lying. They could just try driving slower and accepting the points and paying a higher insurance premium.
_______
Gabriella, that was interesting. I'm sure people lie in court all the time and sometimes it works for them as long as they aren't caught out. Jurors and judges are only human too.
Yes true. An important lesson from this is never go into a business relationship with someone without spending some money getting a lawyer to draw up a formal agreement. My husband kept telling them to get an agreement drawn up and they kept insisting they were best friends, trusted each other and there was no need to spend money on lawyers plus it would feel awkward, given they were friends, or they would say that yeah they would get around to doing a contract eventually etc etc.
I suspect the Plaintiff had other reasons for not wanting their business relationship on paper - he was going through a divorce or about to go through a divorce so I think that might have had something to do with it. He maybe didn't want his wife looking into that side of things.
-
Gabriella, that was interesting. I'm sure people lie in court all the time and sometimes it works for them as long as they aren't caught out.
Which is exactly why perjury and perverting the course of justice are serious offences and need to be dealt with robustly, including the use of appropriately significant sanctions for those found to have perverted the course of justice.
It seems odd having made this statement that previously you have been arguing that perjury and perverting the course of justice are really minor offences that shouldn't trigger a custodial sentence if deemed appropriate.
-
They have seen the evidence they are permitted to see.
Due to police cuts, lack of manpower, an incompetent lawyer, mistaken witnesses or experts that are believed, discredited witnesses or experts who should be believed, or numerous other reasons there could be evidence that would create a different truth from the one opposing lawyers are trying to sell them.
Bias is just one factor. Hence, I reserve my judgement abut judicial outcomes. I might have mentioned before that I was involved in a civil case where the defendant was committing perjury in court, and in the middle of his perjured testimony on the stand, asked if he could take a break as he was fasting and it was Ramadan and he had to break his fast with a date and water as it was sunset. That little act may have influenced the judge. Anyway, he won the case as the judge found him more believable.
My husband was a witness for the plaintiff, based on meetings he had with the two parties together at his office (as their accountant) about their informal partnership. One of the claims of the defendant was that no business meetings had ever taken place with my husband and the plaintiff, and that he had never been involved in any informal partnership with the plaintiff.
Please read what I said.
I did not say that all court verdicts are right.
I did say that 'it is best to accept that those actually making the decision on the basis of the evidence (the Jury) are the best arbiters of the truth at that time.' In other words that the jury (or Judge in civil cases) are best placed to make the decision.
If you disagree with me can you please tell me who exactly is better placed than the jury (or Judge in civil cases) to make such a decision.
-
I get what you're saying Prof. Lying is not a 'good thing' in any circumstances but I sort of understand how people panic. Unreasonably, in my opinion. With a driving offence where no-one was injured, why lie? Makes no sense to me, people make mistakes and if they cough up, they get over it quickly and resolve not to do it again. If banned from driving, it isn't usually forever.
Nowt as queer as folk.
-
I get what you're saying Prof. Lying is not a 'good thing' in any circumstances but I sort of understand how people panic. Unreasonably, in my opinion. With a driving offence where no-one was injured, why lie? Makes no sense to me, people make mistakes and if they cough up, they get over it quickly and resolve not to do it again. If banned from driving, it isn't usually forever.
Nowt as queer as folk.
I agree that people sometimes panic and lie. Others are much more deliberate - they lie to conceal and to try get off things.
And that's why the legal process makes it very clear that although you may choose not to comment (albeit your silence may harm your defence in due course) that you must not lie when asked a direct question.
And I also agree that getting a few points on you license or even a short driving ban isn't the end of the world, for some people they will feel that it is better to lie to try to get out of it. Hence the need for perjury to be considered to be a serious offence and for the sanction to be markedly worse than for the original minor offence. Otherwise there is no incentive to stop people simply lying through their teeth when questioned about minor offences.
-
Please read what I said.
I did not say that all court verdicts are right.
You said in reply #15 that "Well the court seems to think she did with a threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. She can, I guess, appeal but if that isn't successful then we will take the usual route of concluding that she did lie."
My response to this was that no, I wouldn't conclude anything based on a court verdict. I would just see it as the verdict of the court, not necessarily one that I would privately agree with. So it depends what you mean by "conclude". The point I was making was that if I had information that wasn't admissible in court that made me think the court had made a mistake, then I wouldn't conclude that she had lied.
I did say that 'it is best to accept that those actually making the decision on the basis of the evidence (the Jury) are the best arbiters of the truth at that time.' In other words that the jury (or Judge in civil cases) are best placed to make the decision.
If you disagree with me can you please tell me who exactly is better placed than the jury (or Judge in civil cases) to make such a decision.
I would agree that they are the best placed to make the decision but I would not necessarily think truth had anything to do with it. So I wouldn't describe it as them deciding the "truth" but would say that they were best placed to make a decision as to what they thought has been proved in court.
-
You said in reply #15 that "Well the court seems to think she did with a threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. She can, I guess, appeal but if that isn't successful then we will take the usual route of concluding that she did lie."
My response to this was that no, I wouldn't conclude anything based on a court verdict. I would just see it as the verdict of the court, not necessarily one that I would privately agree with. So it depends what you mean by "conclude". The point I was making was that if I had information that wasn't admissible in court that made me think the court had made a mistake, then I wouldn't conclude that she had lied.
My response, when looked at in full, was specifically about whether her colleagues would conclude, in light of a court verdict to that effect, that she lied. Specifically because that is the usual approach following a court decision, particularly when her colleagues have far less information to hand than the jury hearing the case.
Of course if you are personally involved and had different information you might take a different view - but the vast majority of people wont have any additional evidence than the jury, indeed most (if not all) will have far less information than the jury.
-
I would agree that they are the best placed to make the decision but I would not necessarily think truth had anything to do with it. So I wouldn't describe it as them deciding the "truth" but would say that they were best placed to make a decision as to what they thought has been proved in court.
OK - lets drop the word 'truth', perhaps replace with the better legal phrase 'finding of fact'. But the point remains that the jury (or judge) are best placed to determine the facts of the case and to make a decision based on 'beyond reasonable doubt' or 'balance of probabilities' depending on the type of case.
So it seems we are actually completely in agreement - effectively that the jury (or judge) are best placed to determine the facts relating to a case and make the decision.
The issue of poor policing, evidence not being brought forward etc are completely different matters.
-
OK - lets drop the word 'truth', perhaps replace with the better legal phrase 'finding of fact'. But the point remains that the jury (or judge) are best placed to determine the facts of the case and to make a decision based on 'beyond reasonable doubt' or 'balance of probabilities' depending on the type of case.
So it seems we are actually completely in agreement - effectively that the jury (or judge) are best placed to determine the facts relating to a case and make the decision.
The issue of poor policing, evidence not being brought forward etc are completely different matters.
I would say a jury or the judge is best placed to determine the facts of the case based on the fact the case only consists of the evidence they are permitted access to.
That would not be the same as saying that the judge or jury are aware of all the facts relating to an event. So my point was (in response to what you wrote in #15) that I would not automatically conclude whether someone lied or not based on the outcome of a court case.
-
Mmm
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/28/convicted-mp-fiona-onasanya-intends-to-stay-in-parliament?CMP=twt_gu
So all who have had a speeding ticket and lied about it should lose their jobs too so they cannot pay their fines? CRAZY isn't it. What we do for a living should not reflect in a court sentence which costs them their job.
You pay for the crime not make them a victim of that crime by taking their lively hood away.
-
So all who have had a speeding ticket and lied about it should lose their jobs too so they cannot pay their fines?
I’m pretty sure that, if I did that and got a twelve month prison sentence as a result, I’d lose my job.
CRAZY isn't it. What we do for a living should not reflect in a court sentence which costs them their job.
The job in this question is participating in the process of making laws. If the people that make the laws can’t abide by them, what message does that give to the rest of us?
You pay for the crime not make them a victim of that crime by taking their lively hood away.
Perhaps she should have thought of the consequences when she tried to pervert the course of justice. You’d think she’d be an expert on that, what with being a solicitor.
-
Three months in the slammer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47040912
-
Three months in the slammer.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47040912
Serves her right.
-
Her sentence is under review
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47071120
Apparently, somebody complained that it was too lenient and it only takes one complaint to trigger a review.
-
Her sentence is under review
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47071120
Apparently, somebody complained that it was too lenient and it only takes one complaint to trigger a review.
Nasty-minded, self-righteous, sanctimonious bell-end, whoever they are. That shouldn't be possible.
-
Nasty-minded, self-righteous, sanctimonious bell-end, whoever they are. That shouldn't be possible.
Would you say the same if that woman was a member of the Tory Party?
-
Would you say the same if that woman was a member of the Tory Party?
Yes. I'm content to leave sentencing to the judge, who knows more about the case than me.
-
Yes. I'm content to leave sentencing to the judge, who knows more about the case than me.
Fair enough.
-
Nasty-minded, self-righteous, sanctimonious bell-end, whoever they are. That shouldn't be possible.
No. It shoudn’t be so easy.
In general I agree with you. It’s unlikely that a random member of the public would know more than the court, but there needs to be some mechanism for reviewing sentences.
-
Her sentence is under review
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47071120
Apparently, somebody complained that it was too lenient and it only takes one complaint to trigger a review.
Are their initials R and L (in any order)? ;)
-
Are their initials R and L (in any order)? ;)
Norty norty!
-
I’m pretty sure that, if I did that and got a twelve month prison sentence as a result, I’d lose my job.
The job in this question is participating in the process of making laws. If the people that make the laws can’t abide by them, what message does that give to the rest of us?
Perhaps she should have thought of the consequences when she tried to pervert the course of justice. You’d think she’d be an expert on that, what with being a solicitor.
Not really fair, Jeremyp,
The 12 month prison sentence would only come if you did what she did.
Why and how can you deny a speeding ticket. Different horses for different courses. Who made the laws? Well it wasn't us. But she should not try and pervert the course of Justice.
No one should lose their job because of a speeding ticket. Sometimes mercy needs to be shown hardly a massive crime a speeding ticket. The MP's get away with fraud on a regular basis when they complete their expense sheet. Can they point the finger over a speeding ticket denial?
-
No one should lose their job because of a speeding ticket.
Really - even someone whose job involves driving?
But on the case in point the speeding wasn't the issue - it was perverting the course of justice which was the serious charge.
-
Really - even someone whose job involves driving?
But on the case in point the speeding wasn't the issue - it was perverting the course of justice which was the serious charge.
And she deserved her punishment, imo.
-
And she deserved her punishment, imo.
I agree.
The question (I guess) isn't about service her sentence but the effect on her position as an MP. As far as I'm aware as her sentence is less than 1 year she isn't obliged to stand-down, although her constituents can raise a trigger petition that could trigger a by-election. However that cannot happen until her right to appeal has been exhausted.
-
I agree.
The question (I guess) isn't about service her sentence but the effect on her position as an MP. As far as I'm aware as her sentence is less than 1 year she isn't obliged to stand-down, although her constituents can raise a trigger petition that could trigger a by-election. However that cannot happen until her right to appeal has been exhausted.
Surely anyone who is sent down, for however long, shouldn't be permitted to serve as an MP.
-
Surely anyone who is sent down, for however long, shouldn't be permitted to serve as an MP.
That's what the law currently says.
I think the argument is that an MP is accountable to their electorate in terms of their 'job' and therefore, within limits, it is only the electorate who can kick them out rather than them being sacked for an offence.
-
Not really fair, Jeremyp,
The 12 month prison sentence would only come if you did what she did.
Why and how can you deny a speeding ticket. Different horses for different courses. Who made the laws? Well it wasn't us. But she should not try and pervert the course of Justice.
No one should lose their job because of a speeding ticket. Sometimes mercy needs to be shown hardly a massive crime a speeding ticket. The MP's get away with fraud on a regular basis when they complete their expense sheet. Can they point the finger over a speeding ticket denial?
She didn’t get put in prison for a speeding ticket, she got put in prison for perverting the course of justice, which is a serious offense, much more serious than the one she was trying to avoid.
-
Interesting that even with both main parties in the constituency wanting a recall it may not happe
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2019/03/why-election-peterborough-still-not-certain
-
Interesting that even with both main parties in the constituency wanting a recall it may not happe
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2019/03/why-election-peterborough-still-not-certain
It comes as news to me that there even is a recall process.
Having said that, what the political parties think is largely irrelevant. Onasanya Was appointed to her job by the constituents, not either party. It is for them and them only to decide on whether a recall should happen.
-
It comes as news to me that there even is a recall process.
Having said that, what the political parties think is largely irrelevant. Onasanya Was appointed to her job by the constituents, not either party. It is for them and them only to decide on whether a recall should happen.
But it illustrates the difficulties that any recall might face.
-
But it illustrates the difficulties that any recall might face.
I agree, but it shouldn't be possible to get a recall at the drop of a hat. Whilst it should be possible to recall her, it shouldn't be so easy that she has to spend the entire time fighting recall elections.
Having said the above, were I her constituent, I would sign a petition for a recall: I don't think somebody who has been found guilty of perverting the course of justice should be part of the law making process.
-
I agree, but it shouldn't be possible to get a recall at the drop of a hat. Whilst it should be possible to recall her, it shouldn't be so easy that she has to spend the entire time fighting recall elections.
Having said the above, were I her constituent, I would sign a petition for a recall: I don't think somebody who has been found guilty of perverting the course of justice should be part of the law making process.
Yep, agree. The question is the balance. And agree I would sign as well.
-
It comes as news to me that there even is a recall process.
Was not this a consequence of the coalition government? Along with fixed-term parliaments?
-
Some details on the procedure
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/insights/the-first-use-of-a-recall-petition-in-the-uk/
-
Some details on the procedure
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/insights/the-first-use-of-a-recall-petition-in-the-uk/
That answers, in part, my concern about people having to fight recall elections all the time. However, I am disappointed that somebody can only be recalled for breaking the law/rules. I would like it to be possible to recall an MP who breaks promises made during their election campaign. Foe example, if an MP promised to support Brexit during the election campaign, it should be possible to recall them if they consistently vote to thwart it in Parliament.
-
That answers, in part, my concern about people having to fight recall elections all the time. However, I am disappointed that somebody can only be recalled for breaking the law/rules. I would like it to be possible to recall an MP who breaks promises made during their election campaign. Foe example, if an MP promised to support Brexit during the election campaign, it should be possible to recall them if they consistently vote to thwart it in Parliament.
Constitutionally, Members of Parliament are representatives not delegates. They owe their constituents their considered judgement not their slavish obedience.
And they represent all of their constituents - not just the ones who voted for them.
-
Constitutionally, Members of Parliament are representatives not delegates. They owe their constituents their considered judgement not their slavish obedience.
And they represent all of their constituents - not just the ones who voted for them.
And what’s your point?
They stand for an election on a platform. If their later actions contradict that platform, why shouldn’t they be called on to justify them?
-
... If their later actions contradict that platform, why shouldn’t they be called on to justify them?
Where have I said they shouldn't justify their decisions?
-
Fiona Onasanya is subject to a recall election.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-48123355
Effectively, this means she has been sacked. She has already been expelled by the Labour Party, so if she stands in the by-election, it must be as an independent and must have little chance of winning.
-
Have to admit that I am amazed that they got the numbers.
-
Have to admit that I am amazed that they got the numbers.
I'm not - her case got a huge amount of publicity and it is a marginal seat so both Labour and the Tories will have been pushing people to sign the petition (noting that she'd been thrown out of the Labour party so they'll want the chance to win the seat again as much as the Tories).
Interesting to see what will happen in Brecon & Radnorshire - Chris Davies case having received much less publicity and where he remains a Tory MP, so that party is unlikely to be campaigning for people to sign the petition. There is also the issue of geography - the constituency is huge but people have to sign in person and there are only 6 places where they can do so.
-
Even with people being encouraged, I'm amazed they got 27% of the electorate to actively do something. Interesting point about geography - some MPs are safer from recall than others.
-
You can always find people to put the boot in - travelling specifaclly to do would be a deterrent though.
-
You can always find people to put the boot in - travelling specifaclly to do would be a deterrent though.
More than a quarter of the electorate wanted "to put the boot in"?
-
People do act when asked to do so on something they have already made up their mind on.
-
More than a quarter of the electorate wanted "to put the boot in"?
I think this is actually pretty positive for democracy. Also don't forget that she can stand in the by-election, so were there sufficient of the just under three quarters who didn't sign the petition prepared to vote for her she'd be re-elected. That said I very much doubt that is going to happen in this case.
-
I think this is actually pretty positive for democracy.
I agree. I was actually querying the use of the phrase "put the boot in".
Also don't forget that she can stand in the by-election, so were there sufficient of the just under three quarters who didn't sign the petition prepared to vote for her she'd be re-elected. That said I very much doubt that is going to happen in this case.
I think it is extremely likely that she was elected last time because she was the official Labour candidate. People don't generally vote for a person, they vote for the person who represents the party they support. Fiona Onasanya doesn't represent Labour anymore. This recall election is entirely the right thing to do IMO.
-
I agree. I was actually querying the use of the phrase "put the boot in".
...
People are generally more easily induced to act against someone they think is "bad" than to provide positive support for someone they think is probably right or good (in my experience).
-
It comes as news to me that there even is a recall process.
Yet another bit of grandstanding by that irresponsible idiot Cameron.