Re: Huhne was lying : Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:17 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

...( but it is worth bearing in mind that he could have been a genuine challenger to Clegg) that has now gone and does not leave many alternatives to clegg the blue.

... and after the next election, the range of choice for leader will be even smaller.

Re: Huhne was lying : Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:19 am  

Durham Giant wrote: What is interesting is the fact that there are none so so bitter as a woman scorned. I don't know about that, I'd reckon there's been at least as many seriously pisssed-off blokes. I wouldn't have wanted to scorn Genghis Khan, for example, to name but one. Or a Kray twin. Durham Giant wrote: when you look back at it his wife was motivated by revenge which has damaged a lot of people... From what I have read, it wasn't like that*. I've seen that she made one comment to a Sunday paper in an interview many years back, but since when she has stuck to her story that it was she. I remember reading a Sunday paper expose some years back when they did an investigation about Huhne's and his wife's expected routes and more or less proved (and certainly proved to me) that he was lying about the details, as not only could his wife not have reasonably picked him up, but also there was no earthly reason why she should or needed to. Still, that obviously wasn't enough to produce a reasonable prospect of convicton (or he would have been prosecuted) and so it MUST follow that his wife was, even then, still resolutely sticking to the script. Obviously a long time after his infidelity and desertion. The reports seem to suggest that what gave the CPS the ammunition they needed was when they heard about the incriminating email exchanges with his son, so they raided his house and got the phone. His son was clearly seriously pisssed off. {There is nothing I have seen that the prosecution was born out of his wife's wish for revenge*}, and I think you may be doing her a disservice, and as for accusing her of having "damaged a lot of people", I'm sorry but that is bang out of order. {*edit: report now says that indeed it was out of revenge that she passed the story to the press: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21333624 Doesn't say the order of events re the raids etc., but suggests she didn't know of his "affair" till 2011}

Durham Giant wrote: What is interesting is the fact that there are none so so bitter as a woman scorned. I don't know about that, I'd reckon there's been at least as many seriously pisssed-off blokes. I wouldn't have wanted to scorn Genghis Khan, for example, to name but one. Or a Kray twin. Durham Giant wrote: when you look back at it his wife was motivated by revenge which has damaged a lot of people... From what I have read, it wasn't like that*. I've seen that she made one comment to a Sunday paper in an interview many years back, but since when she has stuck to her story that it was she. I remember reading a Sunday paper expose some years back when they did an investigation about Huhne's and his wife's expected routes and more or less proved (and certainly proved to me) that he was lying about the details, as not only could his wife not have reasonably picked him up, but also there was no earthly reason why she should or needed to. Still, that obviously wasn't enough to produce a reasonable prospect of convicton (or he would have been prosecuted) and so it MUST follow that his wife was, even then, still resolutely sticking to the script. Obviously a long time after his infidelity and desertion. The reports seem to suggest that what gave the CPS the ammunition they needed was when they heard about the incriminating email exchanges with his son, so they raided his house and got the phone. His son was clearly seriously pisssed off. {There is nothing I have seen that the prosecution was born out of his wife's wish for revenge*}, and I think you may be doing her a disservice, and as for accusing her of having "damaged a lot of people", I'm sorry but that is bang out of order. {*edit: report now says that indeed it was out of revenge that she passed the story to the press: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21333624 Doesn't say the order of events re the raids etc., but suggests she didn't know of his "affair" till 2011}

Re: Huhne was lying : Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:28 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

... and after the next election, the range of choice for leader will be even smaller.

There's always the Ginger Rodent.

He's even more right-wing than the present incumbent.

[Kosh]

Re: Huhne was lying : Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:09 pm  

Anakin Skywalker wrote:

When it became apparent to him that they in fact were not going to back down when he entered court he had a quick rethink and coughed to it.

Not that quick a re-think, actually. He and his lawyers made strenuous attempts to have the case thrown out on the grounds of adverse publicity. It was only when this was rejected that he pleaded guilty.

Re: Huhne was lying : Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:32 pm  

Kosh wrote: Not that quick a re-think, actually. He and his lawyers made strenuous attempts to have the case thrown out on the grounds of adverse publicity. It was only when this was rejected that he pleaded guilty. Yes, it wasn't a question of them not backing down, but rather the court ruling that he did have a case to answer, and that he could get a fair trial. John Kelsey-Fry, QC, counsel for Huhne, (who reportedly charges twenty grand a day plus VAT plus expenses) had been arguing in pre-trial hearings that (1) there was no chance of a fair trial because pre-trial publicity had been extensive, and because of the passage of time; and (2) no case to answer, because the speeding forms had been routinely destroyed "There's simply no case against Mr Huhne. Indeed in this case there's no evidence of there having been any crime at all, let alone one as to his participation," he said. His legal team pushed for closer scrutiny of the role of police and prosecutors in the case and a second team, from Kent, was brought in to examine the case, but no wrongdoing was found." The court sat through 12 days of a QC arguing that no trial should go ahead. The trial judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, ruled against Huhne's attempt to have the case thrown out last week. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-trial-right-to-the-end-chris-huhne-thought-his-lawyers-could-get-him-off-8480735.html

Kosh wrote: Not that quick a re-think, actually. He and his lawyers made strenuous attempts to have the case thrown out on the grounds of adverse publicity. It was only when this was rejected that he pleaded guilty. Yes, it wasn't a question of them not backing down, but rather the court ruling that he did have a case to answer, and that he could get a fair trial. John Kelsey-Fry, QC, counsel for Huhne, (who reportedly charges twenty grand a day plus VAT plus expenses) had been arguing in pre-trial hearings that (1) there was no chance of a fair trial because pre-trial publicity had been extensive, and because of the passage of time; and (2) no case to answer, because the speeding forms had been routinely destroyed "There's simply no case against Mr Huhne. Indeed in this case there's no evidence of there having been any crime at all, let alone one as to his participation," he said. His legal team pushed for closer scrutiny of the role of police and prosecutors in the case and a second team, from Kent, was brought in to examine the case, but no wrongdoing was found." The court sat through 12 days of a QC arguing that no trial should go ahead. The trial judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, ruled against Huhne's attempt to have the case thrown out last week. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-trial-right-to-the-end-chris-huhne-thought-his-lawyers-could-get-him-off-8480735.html

Re: Huhne was lying : Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:53 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

There's always the Ginger Rodent.

He's even more right-wing than the present incumbent.

I nearly mentioned him earlier as another who isn't a Lib Dem in the way that I understood Lib Dems to be.
I'm always a bit sceptical about Lib Dems with Scottish seats ... you have to wonder whether they simply daren't out themselves as Tories up there because they'd never get elected.

Re: Huhne was lying : Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:40 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

I nearly mentioned him earlier as another who isn't a Lib Dem in the way that I understood Lib Dems to be.
I'm always a bit sceptical about Lib Dems with Scottish seats ... you have to wonder whether they simply daren't out themselves as Tories up there because they'd never get elected.

Suppose there's been a few over the years who I haven't particularly minded and not detested like Alexander.

Ming Campbell.
Charles Kennedy.
David Steel.
Malcolm Bruce.

All sit on the fencers, who I haven't been either here nor there with.

Re: Huhne was lying : Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:49 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

Charles Kennedy.

Always good for a few beers!

Re: Huhne was lying : Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:55 pm  

Standee wrote:

Always good for a few beers!

Preferred the Wizzy I believe.

Re: Huhne was lying : Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:07 pm  

Kosh wrote:

Not that quick a re-think, actually. He and his lawyers made strenuous attempts to have the case thrown out on the grounds of adverse publicity. It was only when this was rejected that he pleaded guilty.

I literally meant entered the court as in the real start of the case not the per case gobbling off.
Even the pre case gobbling off that we are talking about was because he was an MP and the press about the situation that followed.
Therefore when the CPS didn't give it up and a judge decided that him being an MP and he circus that followed wasn't enough for the system to give it up that he coughed to it.
IMHO of course.