Rules..for the many, or the few ?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

15 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)?

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.”

Which just goes to show how poor his (Nicholas Brown) judgement is!

[JJsDad]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

though that was a character witness

No, the prosequting QC ( Jeremy) said:

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

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

 

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by JJsDad

[TIGHTCHOKE]

31 minutes ago, JJsDad said:

No, the prosequting QC ( Jeremy) said:

 

No he didn't it was Opposition chief whip Nicholas Brown.

[JohnfromUK]

I stand corrected!   though can't understand his motive if he is prosecuting

Edited November 23, 2018 by JohnfromUK

[TIGHTCHOKE]

In a quote from Cambridgeshire Live;

"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.

Here is the link;

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/fiona-onasanya-festus-peterborough-mp-15448883

[Gordon R]

I thought a more useful witness might have been the person "who drove the car". I wonder why she didn't call that person, or even bother to ask who it was.

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Gordon R said:

I wonder why she didn't call that person, or even bother to ask who it was.

I imagine you that can't 'call yourself' - and that might possibly be the reason?

Another mystery is why the jury is taking so long?  You can understand if a case was many weeks long and lots of witnesses, technical specialist evidence a load of complex evidence (like perhaps a fraud trail might have) - the jury might have to spend a long time reviewing different pieces of evidence ...... but in this case?

[Gordon R]

I cannot comprehend why they cannot see the obvious. I worry that someone might say "why would she risk it all for three points?" Motives are a side issue. The only question is whether she sought to hide the identity of the driver.

[JJsDad]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

No he didn't it was Opposition chief whip Nicholas Brown.

I am quoting from Peterborough Today:

Mr 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.”

Read more at: https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/jury-begin-deliberating-verdict-in-peterborough-labour-mp-fiona-onasanya-perverting-the-course-of-justice-case-at-old-bailey-1-8714674

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by JJsDad

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I imagine you that can't 'call yourself' - and that might possibly be the reason?

Another mystery is why the jury is taking so long?  You can understand if a case was many weeks long and lots of witnesses, technical specialist evidence a load of complex evidence (like perhaps a fraud trail might have) - the jury might have to spend a long time reviewing different pieces of evidence ...... but in this case?

The case has disappeared from the central court lists, despite it not being concluded, I dont know if this is normal , because Ive never followed one like that before.
There is NO fresh reporting about it, its like the whole matter has disappeared ?
I keep scanning twitter, as at one point there were some private journo types on it , they have gone silent, although yesterday there was a press blackout from reporting from the court (You had to go outside to tweet)
You would have thought it was fairly straightforward , but maybe not ?

Putting an MP in jail is never an easy thing, for various reasons, but a guilty verdict in this case would surely call for it ?

 

[old man]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

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.”

And to me that statement if true encapsulates the whole problem with our politicians?

Had it been the likes of us ordinaires we would have been banged up days ago?

[panoma1]

57 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The case has disappeared from the central court lists, despite it not being concluded, I dont know if this is normal , because Ive never followed one like that before.
There is NO fresh reporting about it, its like the whole matter has disappeared ?
I keep scanning twitter, as at one point there were some private journo types on it , they have gone silent, although yesterday there was a press blackout from reporting from the court (You had to go outside to tweet)
You would have thought it was fairly straightforward , but maybe not ?

Putting an MP in jail is never an easy thing, for various reasons, but a guilty verdict in this case would surely call for it ?

 

And finding a reason to let an MP off when the evidence is damning.........takes time, inventiveness and is also.......never an easy thing!

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

And finding a reason to let an MP off when the evidence is damning.........takes time, inventiveness and is also.......never an easy thing!

Ive found a tweet from someone 'in the know' they are/were still deliberating , and the judge says he will accept a majority verdict now, because theres only 11 jurors left this means a 10 -1 as per the rules.
Its possible they could return tomorrow too, or get sent home for the weekend.

Smells a bit fishy to me.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Jury of 11 packed off for the weekend, deliberation starts again on Monday!!!!!!

[Vince Green]

I would have thought a jury could have decided that case in about two minutes flat

[mel b3]

well roger me gently , shes going to get away with it isnt she

[old man]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

I would have thought a jury could have decided that case in about two minutes flat

Ah, look like judicious amounts of Teflon being applied to lubricate the wheels of justice into a spin?

6 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

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.”

And to me that statement if true encapsulates the whole problem with our politicians?

Had it been the likes of us ordinaires we would have been banged up days ago?

[hambone]

Probably a few on the jury with morals and common sense not backing down to the lets take the easy option lot..

[TIGHTCHOKE]

9 minutes ago, hambone said:

Probably a few on the jury with morals and common sense not backing down to the lets take the easy option lot..

I do hope there are more than a few.

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I do hope there are more than a few.

I presume Old Bailey juries are drawn from London?

If so ........ ??

[Newbie to this]

If I was on the Jury it would be as simple as this,

If it was me in the dock, with that evidence, what would I be found, the fact that She is an MP for me would make it worse, She should be setting an example!

[JohnfromUK]

The jury have to decide whether she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  That she is an MP should not affect that.  IF there is an 'example' to be set, the judge can do that in passing sentence ......... but only if she is first found guilty.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

If I was on the Jury it would be as simple as this,

If it was me in the dock, with that evidence, what would I be found, the fact that She is an MP for me would make it worse, She should be setting an example!

Oh she is setting an example, a bloody awful one, her brother is a better person!

[Vince Green]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I presume Old Bailey juries are drawn from London?

If so ........ ??

Yes and from my experience of several times being on a jury in London, the jurors are selected supposedly "at random" but when I was a juror at the Guildhall we all came from virtually the same postcode. It was as though the court official in charge of selecting jurors had just opened the electoral register at one page and run down the one page selecting jurors. Nothing wrong with that, don't get me wrong. No impropriety implied, maybe laziness? but that jury was (on reflection) all made up of entirely middle class white property owners.

Then you have to question, on what basis do the court official choose their jury list? I live in a very mixed ethnic community? Did they avoid certain surnames or ages? who would ever know?

Choose another postcode two miles up the road and you would get a totally different cross section of people with perhaps different views and different values. Certainly different surnames

Now,  if that happened in this case and the page this week just happened to be (say) Peckham?  well wouldn't that be a result?  Some court official gets quietly put forward for an OBE by the Labour Party  in the next honours list? who would notice or make the connection? 

I'm not suggesting that is the case, I am just trying to point out that juries can SO easily be rigged, consciously or unconsciously, just as much as they can be knobbled. and that's a whole separate issue. Jury knobbling has been rife for decades.

If you think trial by jury is fair and impartial then you need to reassess your views

 

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by Vince Green

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Hopefully after a weekend to think about the case the jury of 11 will reconvene at 10:00 and reach a verdict today.