Jump to content
Complete France Forum

They WILL be charging Huhne


mint

Recommended Posts

I was so amazed at the headline that I haven't as yet read the story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095886/Chris-Huhne-WILL-charged-speeding-points-set-quit-Energy-Minister.html

In an excited fashion, I went to find OH to tell him.  His reply was a laconic, it's a pity because he is one of the more sensible ministers!

Now, THAT wasn't the sort of reaction I expected!  So, I huffily said that it was right and proper that he should be charged and that there shouldn't be one law for politicians and one for the rest....... blah, blah, blah.

So.....what do the rest of you think about this topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Was there really ever any doubt that he was guilty ?

There was a TV documentary on the case a while back and whilst I can't recall it in fine detail the thrust was that the claimed journeys and times etc. just didn't add up meaning that it really could only have been him driving.

I hope they throw the book at him and make him pay for the wasted police time.

Still, what else do you expect from politicians and public figures these days, little wonder that election turnouts are at an all time low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with James Delingpole http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100134689/huhne-youd-need-a-heart-of-stone-not-to-laugh/ :

So there we go. Among the people who will not, I suspect, be shedding any tears at Mr Toad's long-awaited comeuppance are: David Cameron Everyone in the Cabinet, even including Michael Gove who likes – and is liked by – almost everybody in Parliament. Everyone in the Conservative party Everyone in the Labour party Everyone in UKIP Pretty much everyone in the Lib Dems. His ex-wife. Every newspaper including the Daily Mirror – which really ought to like him given how pathologically left-wing he is but has happily made an exception owing to the man's unremitting, weapons-grade vileness. Everyone who was at Westminster with him. (In his Chris Paul-Huhne days.) Everyone who ever worked with him at the Guardian, the Independent, the Economist and the Liverpool Echo. Everyone who lives anywhere near one of his wretched ruddy wind farms (with the possible exception of rent-seeking beneficiaries thereof, such as Sir Reginald Sheffield Bt). Everyone whose electricity bills – ie all of us – have been artificially inflated by his pointless green tariffs. Everyone who worked with him when he was an MEP Everyone who worked with him at Fitch Everyone who knew him at Oxford or the Sorbonne. Pretty much everyone else we haven't mentioned already. ...

Edited by mod to make it clear its a quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a stupid man he is. I see no problem in prosecuting him just as in the same as any other person as surely they would be if they did the same thing and got caught.

Obviously dishonest and should be thrown out the party and a by-election called but then if we did that for every dishonest MP I guess we would have a never ending round of by-elections. [:(]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The voters of Walsall (?) found it very difficult to get rid of John Stonehouse after his Reggie Perrin episode so I will not hold my breath waiting for a by-election.

Had I done what CH is alleged to have done I hope I would have tried harder to keep wifey sweet.

One wonders if the police would have wasted so much time if he were not an Em Pee. But I would prefer to see the more serious crimes investigated first every time.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly I reckon that this happens quite a lot, or people just are not sure who was driving and when, ie we both drive and when we go out can both end up driving at some point. I reckon a couple of weeks later we'd be hard pushed to remember who was driving when.

However, I heard it said on the news last night that at the moment in question she was at a do.  And if that is the case, they both need putting away and heavily fined. She as an accomplice, is as guilty as he is.

 

Hell hath no fury......... that helas goes both ways. I know a few men who have been horrific and frightening after a divorce, and bien sur, I know a few vindictive women too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The force (Essex Police) also asked for a tape recording between Miss Pryce and her

husband during which they discussed the allegations.On the tape, Mr

Huhne urged Miss Pryce not to talk to the media about the allegations

and said there was no evidence to support the story “unless you give it

some legs by saying something”
.Miss Pryce, an economist, replied: “It’s

one of the things that worried me when I took them, when you made me

take the points in the first instance.”

Source:
http://sw9red.wordpress.com/tag/chris-huhne/

If that is indeed a true transcript of a taped conversation then Miss Pryce can have no option but to plead guilty and, by doing so, confirm her ex husbands guilt.

Face with damning evidence like that it's hard to see how a not guilty plea can be offered and if it is, and they are found guilty, the sentencing should reflect that fact.

I predict a last minute guilty plea in an attempt to avoid jail or at least reduce the sentence, not too long to find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr Ice-ni"]

One wonders if the police would have wasted so much time if he were not an Em Pee. But I would prefer to see the more serious crimes investigated first every time.

[/quote]

Surely if a cabinet minster is shown to have lied and perverted the course of justice then this is a serious crime.  These people may make the law but it doesn't place them above it.  Not only that but, if he is found guilty, he has compounded the offence with his ex-wife and has continued to lie for 9 years.

On the other hand he may be acquitted in which case the above para is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RH - I believe that at the time the issue of perjury charges against the parents was raised but the possibility was dismissed.  I am trying to recall the article -but it referred to a number of other high profile cases where next of kin had lied under oath to protect the defendant but no charges had ever been pressed.   The interviewee seemed to suggest that testimonies of next of kin were taken 'with a pinch of salt'.

Mrs R51

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Richard51"]RH - I believe that at the time the issue of perjury charges against the parents was raised but the possibility was dismissed.  I am trying to recall the article -but it referred to a number of other high profile cases where next of kin had lied under oath to protect the defendant but no charges had ever been pressed.   The interviewee seemed to suggest that testimonies of next of kin were taken 'with a pinch of salt'.

Mrs R51
[/quote]

But dont they swear on the bible, koran or something that they will tell the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Russethouse"]Perverting the course of justice is a serious crime, isn't it ?[/quote]

Not when it just concerns driving points for speeding IMHO.

I wonder how many of us have done the same thing as CH - or would to avoid the ban.

As the famous myth may have said  - let him that is without sin etc etc

John

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr Ice-ni"]

[quote user="Russethouse"]Perverting the course of justice is a serious crime, isn't it ?[/quote]

Not when it just concerns driving points for speeding IMHO.

I wonder how many of us have done the same thing as CH - or would to avoid the ban.

[/quote]

I wonder how many of us have allegedly compounded a crime and consistently lied for 9 years in order to retain a position of power and influence in a position where integrity, honesty and openness are fundamental?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...