Why Are People So Pig Headed?

[DangerUXD]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21496566
2 in jail over an SP30, he's raving to try and get her to take the points, she's raving to take them and grass them both up! Words fail me over these imbeciles! What is most frightening of all though is that it seems to be typical of politicians! Never has the Big Yin seemed so wise!

[Mick-Talbot]

Who is in jail?

[emmie]

if he had taken the points on his licence, and that might have meant a short ban, then he should have done it, instead of that he persuades his wife to take them, which she shouldn't have done, so now he is out of a job, his political career is in ruins, and likely will go to prison, and she has been found guilty of perjury, a pair of dunces..

[jackthehat]

Two people (who should know better) did a wrong thing, and now have criminal convictions and both stand a good chance of serving time.

Seems like a good result to me.

[emmie]

for two supposedly intelligent people they sure messed this one up.

[DangerUXD]

They can't be intellegent can they? Lib dems?

[ludwig]

I still find it strange that this is a jailable offence. Surely some combination of a big fine, community service and driving ban covers what they've done?

It's not like me to plead for leniency for criminals, but shouldn't we be locking people up who are a danger to society, rather than just because they're arrogant liars who we don't like much?

[DangerUXD]

perverting the course of justice Ludwig, they donlt like that!

[Zeuhl]

The whole justice system relies on the notion that people tell Courts the truth

Mess with that and the system becomes 'ton of bricks'

[emmie]

perjury doesn't sit well with judges..

[douglas9401]

Pour encourager les autres. :)

[New Judge]

Or perhaps "pour décourager les autres" would be more appropriate in this case.

[New Judge]

Oh and by the way they have not been convicted of perjury but of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

[Nibble]

Hopefully, they'll both be sentenced to the maximum permissable under http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perverting_the_course_of_justice/

concealing evidence - 4 months to 18 months, possibly longer if serious crime

[FredPuli43]

However, NJ, it's fair to say that the jury were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she had, in fact, committed perjury in the course of the trial ! And that's why she should be weighed off with a sentence above the ordinary tariff. I'd be inclined to sentence him to 18 months, since he had no tenable defence yet still waited to the last moment to plead, and her to 15 months, and see what the Court of Appeal said. I'm sure they'd like the opportunity to sound off about public figures, high standards expected, plotters who nearly got away with the crime etc etc

[ludwig]

The thing is, she's still got the revenge she wanted. She may think her sentence is a price worth paying for ruining his career. She must have known this was the possible outcome when she initiated the whole thing.

[youngmafbog]

Well, Lib dems. Lying seems to be the thing, even now.

[emmie]

ludwig, suggest she didn't think this would be the outcome... otherwise why was she so surprised by being found guilty... that was from the news report earlier..

[New Judge]

I don’t think that when she signed the form Ms Pryce had in her mind (a) that such a misdemeanour would get out and (b) that if it did she would be advised by some smart-alec lawyer that she would have to put forward the defence of marital coercion.

This story has been riddled with inconsistencies from the day it hit the news (which was a long time ago). First of all Mr Huhne denied that any such wrongdoing had taken place at all, that he was completely innocent and that he would “vigorously defend” the allegations. Maintaining this stance until the door of the Crown Court on trial day meant a huge amount of effort had to be made by the CPS preparing the matter. Then he stuck his hand up so demonstrating that his earlier machinations were nothing more than a pack of lies and also making it much more difficult for his wife to maintain her Not Guilty plea.

As far as I know the defence to be offered by both of them initially was that no wrongdoing took place because Ms Pryce was actually the driver. This was now almost impossible. So the “marital coercion” defence reared its head. I’m pleased that the jury reached a guilty verdict because these two people did what probably thousands of couples across the land do every year. But the arrogant MR Huhne (and indeed his wife) obviously believed they were above prosecution (which they probably would have been had she kept her mouth shut). Mr Huhne should have taken the £60 and three points. He could probably argued “exceptional hardship” to avoid a ban under the totting up rules and the points would have been removed from his licence long ago.

I imagine she was surprised at being convicted because, following the fiasco that was the earlier trial, her brief had probably assured her that no jury would be found that was intelligent enough to see through her lies.

[chaptazbru]

Serves them both right - pair of selfish twits !!!!

[Anngel]

I'm with ludwig on this one. Prison should be for serious criminals who are a danger to people or their property. These idiots should be cleaning out sewers or emptying doo poo bins. Might save on the council tax too!! In my opinion people with any political bias need some serious help. Historically, every party has been shown at some stage to manipulate the truth and treat the voting public like morons. It really is the lesser of three evils in this country.