Jump to content

Rules..for the many, or the few ?


Rewulf
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Unless we are talking a total denial of justice (not impossible in this country) the verdict should be a no brainer.
Its the sentencing Im interested in.
If you or me went down this foolhardy route, took it to crown court and continued to perjure ourselves, I would be expecting somewhere between a 1 and 2 year sentence if found guilty.
There are precedents set for this, but I think she will not get anything like that, I see a suspended coming personally.
On conviction she should resign really, but I dont think she' ll do that either , without a push.

As I said, I await the verdict hopefully today, then we shall see what sentence he brother gets and see if she does indeed get off.

16 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

So have they established that it was her driving the car or are they accepting that She can't remember.

If so will they amend the NIP and add a can't remember check box!

I can't see how Her defence of ignorance can wash, She is a trained legal professional, She should never be in ignorance of the law.

I've never had a NIP or any legal training, but even I know it is the registered keepers responsibility to fill it out truthfully.

 

Edit- My guess is She gets nothing and Her Brother get all the blame.

Don't forget the signal of her two phones were found to be in the area at the time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 636
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What doesn't seem to have been highlighted - if she was driving the car - she is a liar. She said she never used her phone whilst driving, but her phones went through the traffic camera with her car. Even she accepts it could have been her - despite this would mean she lied. 

I worry about the justice system, when cases like this potentially bring it into ridicule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

What doesn't seem to have been highlighted - if she was driving the car - she is a liar. She said she never used her phone whilst driving, but her phones went through the traffic camera with her car. Even she accepts it could have been her - despite this would mean she lied. 

I worry about the justice system, when cases like this potentially bring it into ridicule.

Theres lots of inconsistencies, some might call it forgetfulness , or downright lies !

Like , she thought she was in parliament that day, even though recess was declared just 4 days previously.

She left the NIP to be 'sorted' even though she had done one not long back , and being a solicitor , knowing full well it was her responsibility to fill out - and sign.

No explanation for her phones being in the vicinity.

Did she submit her diary as evidence she wasnt at Mr Defeo's house that night ?
 

Unfortunately for her, throwing her brother under the bus isnt going to save her.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Theres lots of inconsistencies, some might call it forgetfulness , or downright lies !

Like , she thought she was in parliament that day, even though recess was declared just 4 days previously.

She left the NIP to be 'sorted' even though she had done one not long back , and being a solicitor , knowing full well it was her responsibility to fill out - and sign.

No explanation for her phones being in the vicinity.

Did she submit her diary as evidence she wasnt at Mr Defeo's house that night ?
 

Unfortunately for her, throwing her brother under the bus isnt going to save her.

 

Claiming Ignorance of the law is no defence, even for the layman.....let alone a legal professional!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Claiming Ignorance of the law is no defence, even for the layman.....let alone a legal professional!

I think her main problem is contempt for the law.
Which as a legal professional is her JOB to administer.
But, as an MP in public service, it is her DUTY to uphold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

I think her main problem is contempt for the law.
Which as a legal professional is her JOB to administer.
But, as an MP in public service, it is her DUTY to uphold.

My post was intended to describe a legal position, but I agree with your description of an apparent moral (or lack of it!) position!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

My post was intended to describe a legal position, but I agree with your description of an apparent moral (or lack of it!) position!

I know where you were  coming from 👍

Its just that in this case , it was about the only defence she had !!

Youve got to ask yourself why she went this far ?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, panoma1 said:

Are the scales of justice stalling for time, in order to blindside the public, so they can slip in a soft sentence? A bit like they are doing with the so called Brexit "deal" 🤔

Making me wonder.
Ive never been in the position, but I suppose you have to give due consideration before wrecking someones life ?
Even if it is their own fault, and the evidence appears damning .
Personally I think its a guilty, with a 6 month suspended sentence coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Are the scales of justice stalling for time, in order to blindside the public, so they can slip in a soft sentence? A bit like they are doing with the so called Brexit "deal" 🤔

I suspect no verdict has been reached and the jury have been told to come back tomorrow. No one wants to go back to work on a Friday after 2 weeks of jury servuce when you can finish up a case and half the rest of the day off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, panoma1 said:

so they can slip in a soft sentence?

The sentence comes after - and is independent of the verdict.

The verdict will be a simple "guilty/not guilty" answer.  The judge then passes sentence that will fall within guidelines for that offence, and whether it is nearer the lenient or tough limits will be based on previous convictions (if any), co-operation with enquiries, the need to set an example etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is a decent MP (according to the media and Prosecution), with no previous convictions that I am aware of. Set against that is her complete failure to co-operate in getting to the truth. Her ignorance of the law, despite her legal background, her vague memory, her inability to treat the NIP with any seriousness, her failure to follow it up and establish what was entered on it, her failure to ask her mother or brother if they were driving, her lack of curiosity as to who was driving, her using a mobile phone whilst driving ( if she is found to have been driving), her inability to explain how someone unknown was using her car - carrying her two mobile phones, in an area where she was in fact visiting, should count against her. 

In the event of a "Guilty" verdict, she will only have herself to blame if she is harshly judged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The sentence comes after - and is independent of the verdict.

The verdict will be a simple "guilty/not guilty" answer.  The judge then passes sentence that will fall within guidelines for that offence, and whether it is nearer the lenient or tough limits will be based on previous convictions (if any), co-operation with enquiries, the need to set an example etc.

I wasn't saying the judge give the verdict! The judge sentences the accused when the jury returns a guilty verdict.....but the judge adjourned proceedings.........which means the trial will resume at a later time/date, consequently the verdict will also be reached at a later time/date.....as, if guilty? So will the sentencing! Hence my comment regarding the scales of justice........meaning the system represented by the judge, "stalling for time"

Edited by panoma1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JJsDad said:

the prosecution described her as a hard working public servant ! 

I though that was a character witness (presumably called by her defence), namely the Opposition Chief Whip Nicholas Brown (her boss)?

Earlier, Opposition chief whip Nicholas Brown spoke up for Onasanya, describing her as honest and trustworthy. In a character witness statement read out in court, the MP said his colleague was “a decent, outgoing character” who was committed to her work in her constituency and as a Parliamentarian. He said: “She is a person of strong personal beliefs rooted in her religious faith. “I judge her to be honest, trustworthy and reliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I though that was a character witness (presumably called by her defence), namely the Opposition Chief Whip Nicholas Brown (her boss)?

n his closing speech, David Jeremy QC, prosecuting, said the MP had built a “dishonest contrivance” by “taking a scalpel” to the evidence and cutting out the bits that were uncomfortable for her.

Labour MP tells court she doesn't know who drove speeding Nissan

He said Onasanya responded to questions in a way “sometimes attributed to politicians”.

Jeremy told jurors: “I doubt that you will derive a great deal of pleasure from having to decide this case. It should of course have never come to this: a trial at the Old Bailey.

Ms Onasanya is undoubtedly a talented, hard-working public servant. You should make every allowance for everything that you have heard in her favour.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...