"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Huhne broke the law by speeding. No big deal.Getting someone
else to take the penalty for this is, though. Perjury.


It's considered such a heinous crime that it was the subject
of an episode of "Lead Balloon". In that instance Rick ended
up bribing Magda their Russian help into taking the hit.

Not quite sure what bearing fiction has on this?

Its a reflection of public attitudes as to what's considered
acceptable behaviour.

Maybe forty years ago a similar scenario might have
concerned drunken driving. But not today.

Whether you, me or anyone else happens to like it
or not, speeding on motorways is generally considered
to be a relatively trivial offence. Alongside filling
in the associated forms.




Then lying incessantly about it afterwards.

Huhne had no choice but to continue lying. Otherwise his wife
too would be charged with conspiring to pervert the course of
justice.

Fine. Might just stop others doing the same.

Clearly we both find ourselves in the enviable position
of never having had to lie or perjure ourselves in order
to protect other people.

Lucky old us, eh ?

Having no particular need to gloat for whatever reason,
I'm quite happy to leave it at that myself.

....


Hardly a decent example to his kids.



Lying in order to keep their mother out of prison ?

So you reckon Huhne should have shopped his wife then, do you ?

He'd already done the damage. And more fool her by agreeing to it.

FFS, they're adults. If people in that privileged position can't be
expected to take responsibility for their actions, who can?

....

Huhne is in public life, which requires a lot of driving about, quite
possibly a lot more than his wife. As a result he'll have been a lot
more likely to pick up penalty points than his wife. Under such
circumstances an "arrangement" whereby the points are shared out
between them doesn't seem to be that unreasonable.

Although as I understand it, even if he had been disqualified
he could well have afforded to employ a chaffeur.

The tight ****. Send him down !


michael adams

....




--
*Starfishes have no brains *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 1:02:08 PM UTC, michael adams wrote:
"mike" wrote in message

...

snip




I wonder how many people on here feel their parents only

fed them for eighteen years on the tacit understanding they

wouldn't leak emails to a newspaper over a relatively

trivial offence so as to get both of them charged with

Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice and in the

process destroy their father's career.



Huhnes only real mistake was in spoiling the little

scrote for the whole of his pampered life.





michael adams




They **** you up your mum and dad
They may not mean it but they do
They give you all the faults they had
Then add some extra just for you

With apologies to Philip Larkin if I got some of that wrong

"Alexander Lamaison" wrote in message
...
"michael adams" writes:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ARW wrote:
The fact that it was 10 years ago that she took the 3 points for
speeding does not matter to her. Her claws are out. You cannot reason
with them when you have not been caught with your trousers down - so
what chance do you have when you have been caught shagging someone else?

Seems his son thinks he's a prat too. It's not so much what he did, but
lying through his teeth about it afterwards.

Huhne's only a prat for not punching the ungrateful little
git in the mouth IMO. Who exactly does diddums Peter think
has been putting food in his mouth, clothing him, feeding
him, and arranging for his education for the first 17
years of his life ?

The taxpayer.

Really ?

According to Wki

quote

he was a City entrepreneur. He told The Independent in 2008:
"I don't claim that I'm in other than a very happy position
compared with most people, because, having spent a bit of time
in the City before I was elected, being able to make a bit of
money while I was there, I have a cushion."[17][18] He started
a company named Sovereign Ratings IBCA in 1994 that tried to
"scientifically measure the risks of investing in different
countries".[17] In 1997 he became managing director of Fitch
IBCA, and from 1999 to 2003 was vice-chairman of Fitch Ratings.[17]

Huhne was economics editor, lead writer and columnist for The
Guardian,[19] and economics editor, assistant editor and columnist
for The Independent on Sunday. He was the business editor of The
Independent and The Independent on Sunday during its investigations
into Robert Maxwell's fraud on the Mirror group pension fund. He
started as an undercover freelance reporter in India during Mrs
Gandhi's emergency when western journalists had been expelled.
He also worked for the Liverpool Daily Post and Liverpool Echo
and The Economist (as their Brussels correspondent 1977–1980) .
He won both the junior and senior Wincott awards for financial
journalist of the year (in 1980 and 1989 respectively).[20]
Along with his work in newspapers and magazine he cowrote
the book Debt & Danger: The World Financial Crisis (Penguin, 1985)
with Harold Lever, and wrote Real World Economics (Penguin 1990)[19]

quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne



michael adams

...



Alex

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Huhnes only real mistake was in spoiling the little
scrote for the whole of his pampered life.

You appear to be blaming the messenger...

--
*Few women admit their age; fewer men act it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Whether you, me or anyone else happens to like it
or not, speeding on motorways is generally considered
to be a relatively trivial offence. Alongside filling
in the associated forms.

Speeding as such may be considered a trivial offence by many. Saying 'it
wasn't me gov' and passing the conviction on to someone else is an
*entirely* different matter. And it wasn't just a mistake in some form
filling.

I'm utterly amazed you appear to be supporting his actions.

--
*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"michael adams" writes:

"Alexander Lamaison" wrote in message
...
"michael adams" writes:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ARW wrote:
The fact that it was 10 years ago that she took the 3 points for
speeding does not matter to her. Her claws are out. You cannot reason
with them when you have not been caught with your trousers down - so
what chance do you have when you have been caught shagging someone else?

Seems his son thinks he's a prat too. It's not so much what he did, but
lying through his teeth about it afterwards.

Huhne's only a prat for not punching the ungrateful little
git in the mouth IMO. Who exactly does diddums Peter think
has been putting food in his mouth, clothing him, feeding
him, and arranging for his education for the first 17
years of his life ?

The taxpayer.

Really ?

According to Wki

quote

he was a City entrepreneur. He told The Independent in 2008:
"I don't claim that I'm in other than a very happy position
compared with most people, because, having spent a bit of time
in the City before I was elected, being able to make a bit of
money while I was there, I have a cushion."[17][18] He started
a company named Sovereign Ratings IBCA in 1994 that tried to
"scientifically measure the risks of investing in different
countries".[17] In 1997 he became managing director of Fitch
IBCA, and from 1999 to 2003 was vice-chairman of Fitch Ratings.[17]

snip

quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne

He's been a paid polician since 1999 (dear Peter was 6) so the taxpayer
had a large hand in it.

But I guess my point is actually why do some people consider being fed
and watered by their parents to be some sort of gift they should be
grateful for? It's what the law requires them to do! Am I supposed to
be grateful every time someone passes me in a car within the speed
limit?

Respect is earned. The idea we automatically respect our elders without
question is Victorian and not a little dangerous
(coughjimmysavillecough).

On 05/02/2013 13:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
polygonum wrote:
If he were not a hypocrite, he as green minister would not having been
consuming excess fuel by speeding... (I'll hazard a guess that it was
not a super-fuel-frugal model either.)

Saw him in a Mk1 Pious on TV yesterday. So he can't have been speeding by
much. Unless it was a 30 limit. ;-)

It was on the M11 wasn't it? I don't think there are any 30 limits on
Motorways. Not sure I've even seen one around roadworks. They are
usually 50 or perhaps 40.

On 05/02/13 13:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

FFS, they're adults. If people in that privileged position can't be
expected to take responsibility for their actions, who can?

And that is the pint. With privilege comes responsibility: something the
Labour party and now it seems the limp dims, never realised.

If a builder takes an hour off to nob the local tart, its not even news.
If the Pope does, it threatens the whole catholic church.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"Alexander Lamaison" wrote in message
...
"michael adams" writes:

"Alexander Lamaison" wrote in message
...
"michael adams" writes:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ARW wrote:
The fact that it was 10 years ago that she took the 3 points for
speeding does not matter to her. Her claws are out. You cannot reason
with them when you have not been caught with your trousers down - so
what chance do you have when you have been caught shagging someone else?

Seems his son thinks he's a prat too. It's not so much what he did, but
lying through his teeth about it afterwards.

Huhne's only a prat for not punching the ungrateful little
git in the mouth IMO. Who exactly does diddums Peter think
has been putting food in his mouth, clothing him, feeding
him, and arranging for his education for the first 17
years of his life ?

The taxpayer.

Really ?

According to Wki

quote

he was a City entrepreneur. He told The Independent in 2008:
"I don't claim that I'm in other than a very happy position
compared with most people, because, having spent a bit of time
in the City before I was elected, being able to make a bit of
money while I was there, I have a cushion."[17][18] He started
a company named Sovereign Ratings IBCA in 1994 that tried to
"scientifically measure the risks of investing in different
countries".[17] In 1997 he became managing director of Fitch
IBCA, and from 1999 to 2003 was vice-chairman of Fitch Ratings.[17]

snip

quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne

He's been a paid polician since 1999 (dear Peter was 6) so the taxpayer
had a large hand in it.

Well obviously the UK and the world for that matter would be a far
better place if all paid politicians were dipsensed with and the
likes of yourself were allowed to take their place and perform
al their tasks and duties for nothing.

One of the real revelations of the Internet and Usenet in particular,
is just how many suprememely talented people there are out there,
who could solve all the world's problems at the drop of a hat if
only they were given the chance. Whereas instead they're reduced
to sitting around in their pyjamas all day long, behind closed
curtains, while eating their Pot Noodles and tapping away.

What a waste!




But I guess my point is actually why do some people consider being fed
and watered by their parents to be some sort of gift they should be
grateful for?

Yes. A lot of children are abused by their parents, mentally,
physically or sexually. The exact numbers will never be known.

The fact that you weren't aware of this means that you weren't
abused yourself.

This is something you should be grateful for, although there
again perhaops you were particularly ugly or unapealling
as a child yourself and so didnt attract unwlecome attention.

Respect is earned.

Huhne's impressive CV is worthy of respect.

His son got into Oxford which is preferable to being pimped out
as a rent-boy by his dad from the age of 14.


The idea we automatically respect our elders without
question is Victorian and not a little dangerous
(coughjimmysavillecough).

Jimmy Saville was widely regarded as a buffoon during the
whole of his lifetime.

The fact that you "respected" him says rather more about you
than it does about him.


michael adams

....

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:51:55 -0000, "michael adams"
wrote:

----------------8
One of the real revelations of the Internet and Usenet in particular,
is just how many suprememely talented people there are out there,
who could solve all the world's problems at the drop of a hat if
only they were given the chance. Whereas instead they're reduced
to sitting around in their pyjamas all day long, behind closed
curtains, while eating their Pot Noodles and tapping away.

What a waste!

“Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy
driving taxicabs and cutting hair.” - George Burns

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 13:34:32 +0000, michael adams wrote:

Huhne is in public life, which requires a lot of driving about, quite
possibly a lot more than his wife. As a result he'll have been a lot
more likely to pick up penalty points than his wife.

Sorry, I call ********. If he drives that much he should be in *less* of
a position to pick up penalty points.

So somebody who drives say 50 miles per year will pick up more
penalty points than someone who drives 50,000 miles per year ?

Care to explain ?



Would you apply that same logic to an airline pilot ?


No. Neither would I apply it to ballet dancers or taxidermists either.

Next question.



michael adams

.....

On 5 Feb, 10:13, "michael adams" wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message

...









michael adams wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. He knobbed another woman
and he got caught by the wife.

The fact that it was 10 years ago that she took the 3 points for
speeding does not matter to her. Her claws are out. You cannot
reason with them when you have not been caught with your trousers
down - so what chance do you have when you have been caught
shagging someone else?

Except his wife had nothing to do with it. As she knew as
well as he did that is saying anything at all she'd simply be
landing herself in the **** as well. As its a bit late
for her to be coming up with excuses.

She is as guilty as a puppy sat next to a pile of poo.

She had nothing to do with shopping him.

Apart from leaking the details to the press, no, nothing at all.

MBQ

"michael adams" writes:

"Alexander Lamaison" wrote in message
...
"michael adams" writes:


But I guess my point is actually why do some people consider being fed
and watered by their parents to be some sort of gift they should be
grateful for?

Yes. A lot of children are abused by their parents, mentally,
physically or sexually. The exact numbers will never be known.

The fact that you weren't aware of this means that you weren't
abused yourself.

This is something you should be grateful for, although there
again perhaops you were particularly ugly or unapealling
as a child yourself and so didnt attract unwlecome attention.

I should be grateful that my parent didn't diddle me? are you serious?
At what point did not diddling your kids become so unusual it's worthy
of great respect.

Bad people do bad things and should suffer the consequences. But normal
people should not get extra credit for not doing those things.

Respect is earned.

Huhne's impressive CV is worthy of respect.

His son got into Oxford which is preferable to being pimped out
as a rent-boy by his dad from the age of 14.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Same for much of where
this thread is going.

The idea we automatically respect our elders without
question is Victorian and not a little dangerous
(coughjimmysavillecough).

Jimmy Saville was widely regarded as a buffoon during the
whole of his lifetime.

The fact that you "respected" him says rather more about you
than it does about him.

I respected him? News to me.

Alex

--
Swish - Easy SFTP for Windows Explorer (http://www.swish-sftp.org)

On Feb 5, 3:18*pm, Apellation Controlee wrote:

“Too bad that all the people who know how to run the country are busy
driving taxicabs and cutting hair.” - George Burns


And conversely, given Huhn's driving record, he'd clearly be much
better driving a taxi than running the country.

On 5 Feb, 12:39, "michael adams" wrote:


Huhne had no choice but to continue lying.

Bull****.

Otherwise his wife
too would be charged with conspiring to pervert the course of
justice.

So she should be.

Hardly a decent example to his kids.

Lying in order to keep their mother out of prison ?

Lying in public office.

So you reckon Huhne should have shopped his wife then, do you ?

He should have come clean about what happened in the first place.

michael adams

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
FFS, they're adults. If people in that privileged position can't be
expected to take responsibility for their actions, who can?

And that is the pint. With privilege comes responsibility: something the
Labour party and now it seems the limp dims, never realised.

Oh, c'mon. It's hardly a party matter. Plenty of Tories been caught doing
what they shouldn't too.

If a builder takes an hour off to nob the local tart, its not even news.
If the Pope does, it threatens the whole catholic church.

He'd probably get a round of applause at his age.

--
*Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 13:34:32 +0000, michael adams wrote:

Huhne is in public life, which requires a lot of driving about, quite
possibly a lot more than his wife. As a result he'll have been a lot
more likely to pick up penalty points than his wife.

Sorry, I call ********. If he drives that much he should be in *less* of
a position to pick up penalty points.

So somebody who drives say 50 miles per year will pick up more
penalty points than someone who drives 50,000 miles per year ?

Care to explain ?

Someone who drives 50,000 miles a year is relying on their car a great
deal more so should have the sense to stay within the law. And he's far
less likely to get a bollocking for being late than a travelling salesman
or van driver.

--


Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Man at B&Q" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 12:39, "michael adams" wrote:


Huhne had no choice but to continue lying.

Bull****.

Otherwise his wife
too would be charged with conspiring to pervert the course of
justice.

So she should be.

A crime crying out to heaven for vengeance.

On the News today some scumbags running a care service for
the elderly shut up shop and without telling anyone
left an old lady to starve to death.

Howver they probably didn't beak any law.

So lets burn the witch instead !



Hardly a decent example to his kids.

Lying in order to keep their mother out of prison ?

Lying in public office.

What's public office got to do with it ?

Why should people in public office be expected to be
any more honest than anyone else ?

People in public office should be judged on their ability to
do the job they're being paid to do. Nothing else

If they choose to lie regarding a matter which has nothing
to do with the execution of that office so as to keep
their wife out of prison, then that's their own business.
Nobody else's.

Obviously there are those around who would far rather
the country was run by incompetent holy joes, if that
what it takes.

I very much doubt for instance if Tony Bliar would ever
have contemplated doing anything quite so dishonest.
But then he much preferred starving Iraqui babies
instead.

Pass the sickbag Alice.


michael adams

....

michael adams wrote:
"I don't claim that I'm in other than a very happy position
compared with most people, because, having spent a bit of time
in the City before I was elected, being able to make a bit of
money while I was there, I have a cushion."

That was one of the things that ****ed me off when I was a local
councillor, where everything was under the thumb of people with nice
comfortable outside incomes, pocketing the full councillor's pay and
would go swanning off "ooo, I'm busy", dumping all the work on the few
people who were doing it as a job of work with no other income, across
all the parties; so you'd get a core of councillors doing 50-odd hours
a week with a 12K total income and most of the rest doing about 10
hours with a 80K+ total income. And now Eric the Pickle wants to make
it even worse by insisting that elected public office be only open to
people rolling in money by insisting councillors aren't paid at all.

JGH

In article ,
michael adams wrote:


What's public office got to do with it ?

Why should people in public office be expected to be
any more honest than anyone else ?

People in public office should be judged on their ability to
do the job they're being paid to do. Nothing else

They are, because they are paid for by us, supposed to set an example in
their behaviour.to the rest of us.






--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:


What's public office got to do with it ?

Why should people in public office be expected to be
any more honest than anyone else ?

People in public office should be judged on their ability to
do the job they're being paid to do. Nothing else

They are, because they are paid for by us, supposed to set an example in
their behaviour.to the rest of us.

Really ?

So most children and teenagers base their behaviour on that of
people in public office, rather than that of their peers, pop-stars,
tv celebrities, and sport personalities do they ?

Or is this only supposed to apply to impressionable adults
with no moral standards of their own ?


michael adams

....













--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 13:34:32 +0000, michael adams wrote:

Huhne is in public life, which requires a lot of driving about,
quite possibly a lot more than his wife. As a result he'll have
been a lot more likely to pick up penalty points than his wife.

Sorry, I call ********. If he drives that much he should be in *less*
of a position to pick up penalty points.

Would you apply that same logic to an airline pilot ?

ATM I seem to get a speeding ticket on average every 50000 miles or
so..........

--
Adam

On 05/02/2013 16:39, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:40:02 +0000, michael adams wrote:
d text muted]

So somebody who drives say 50 miles per year will pick up more penalty
points than someone who drives 50,000 miles per year ?

Care to explain ?

Somebody who drives 50,000 miles a year, by dint of experience, should be
more cued as to any hidden nasties, and more able to keep to the speed
limit. If you don't believe me, check out the state of driving during the
day Monday to Friday, and then the weekend - particularly on motorways.

Many years ago you'd get a lot of stories in local newspapers about
someone pleading not to be banned (for drink-drive, for speeding the
n-th time, etc.). The offender would be saying "If I lose my licence,
I'll lose my job." - as a rep, taxi driver, or other driving-dependent
role. Surely that should be a huge incentive not to offend? Shouldn't we
expect people who are on the road for 50,000 miles a year to be extra
careful?

Yes - I did once get done for speeding. My mistake. I took the warning
and the points accrued were wiped out many years ago.

--
Rod

michael adams wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. He knobbed another woman
and he got caught by the wife.

The fact that it was 10 years ago that she took the 3 points for
speeding does not matter to her. Her claws are out. You cannot
reason with them when you have not been caught with your trousers
down - so what chance do you have when you have been caught
shagging someone else?

Except his wife had nothing to do with it. As she knew as
well as he did that is saying anything at all she'd simply be
landing herself in the **** as well. As its a bit late
for her to be coming up with excuses.


Huhne made the big mistake of telling his son, Peter the Plonker
about what had happened years ago, who being a bit on the thick
side - then decided to get all self righteous by threatening
to report dad to the police, quite overlooking the
fact that he'd be dropping mummy in it as well.

quote

" But text messages between Huhne and his son Peter, sent
in May 2011 and declared admissible in court by Mr Justice
Sweeney, revealed Peter put pressure on Huhne to "accept
responsibility" for the offence.

Peter said: "We all know that you were driving and you put
pressure on Mum. Accept it or face the consequences. You've
told me that was the case. Or will this be another lie?"

Huhne replied: "I have no intention of sending Mum to
Holloway Prison for three months. Dad"

A year ago, Huhne told reporters he was "innocent of these
charges" and vowed to fight them in the courts

His son asked: "Are you going to accept your responsibility
or do I have to contact the police and tell them what you told
me?" later adding: "It's not about her its about your accepting
your responsibility to me."

/quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21320992

To repeat "Your responsibility to me".

What a prize ****.

All three of them are as thick as pig ****.

Now what a surprise "Vicky Pryce 'wanted revenge' over Chris Huhne's affair"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21333624


--
Adam

Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:40:02 +0000, michael adams wrote:
d text muted]

So somebody who drives say 50 miles per year will pick up more
penalty points than someone who drives 50,000 miles per year ?

Care to explain ?

Somebody who drives 50,000 miles a year, by dint of experience,
should be more cued as to any hidden nasties, and more able to keep
to the speed limit. If you don't believe me, check out the state of
driving during the day Monday to Friday, and then the weekend -
particularly on motorways.

I always speed on motorways when safe to do so.

--
Adam

On 04/02/2013 19:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/02/13 18:04, Brian Gaff wrote:
Don't you think though, that we expect our politicians to be saints? I
mean,
the general public at large is not, so why do we expect these people
to be
any different. I think it will be very funny as if he is pleading guilty,
and his wife not guilty, where does that place the truth?


Nick Clegg: voters should have right to expel MPs convicted of a
criminal offence
Voters will have the right in future to sack their Member of Parliament
if they are found guilty of a criminal offence, Nick Clegg, the Deputy
Prime Minister, has said.

No we do not expect our politicians to be saints BUT when they engage in
perjury, it is time to consider them unfit for public office.

I dunno about you, but when I put on a suit and represent myself as the
advocate of a company or some similar organisation, I pay a price in not
dancing down the streets naked and expecting to keep my job.


The trick with politicians is to find one who can lie and cheat with the
country in mind not for themselves.

Why on earth would they have the country in mind?


Mind you I guess Nixon was doing that in his mind when he got caught
doing
daft things in the states.

Exactly so. He got found out and he got the chop.

Venal is one thing, stupid is another.


Brian



Funnily enough, Clegg agrees and thinks we ought to be able to get rid
of such bad eggs:


Nick Clegg: voters should have right to expel MPs convicted of a
criminal offence

Voters will have the right in future to sack their Member of Parliament
if they are found guilty of a criminal offence, Nick Clegg, the Deputy
Prime Minister, has said.

At present, MPs are disqualified from Parliament only if they are
sentenced to a prison term of more than 12 months.

But under the Coalition Governments plans to give voters the right to
€œrecall€� their MP, any criminal conviction could be sufficient to
trigger a local ballot to consider whether expulsion should take place.

Mr Clegg told the Commons that where there was a clear case of
wrongdoing, a petition signed by 10 per cent of electors in the errant
MPs constituency would be enough to recall them.

Exact details of what would constitute wrongdoing are to be set out by
the Government €œshortly,€� the Liberal Democrat leader said.

But at the very least, any MP convicted of a criminal offence should
potentially be up for recall.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8355...l-offence.html

Ho, ho ho.

As Huhne has, apparently, now resigned (i.e. got Chiltern Hundreds), the
voters would not now be in a position to expel him had Clegg's "right"
been put into law.

Wonder how his failure to 'fess up earlier has affected his pension rights?

And, of course, would Huhne have been eligible for Chiltern Hundreds if
he had been sentenced to more than 12 months?

--
Rod

"ARW" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. He knobbed another woman
and he got caught by the wife.

The fact that it was 10 years ago that she took the 3 points for
speeding does not matter to her. Her claws are out. You cannot
reason with them when you have not been caught with your trousers
down - so what chance do you have when you have been caught
shagging someone else?

Except his wife had nothing to do with it. As she knew as
well as he did that is saying anything at all she'd simply be
landing herself in the **** as well. As its a bit late
for her to be coming up with excuses.


Huhne made the big mistake of telling his son, Peter the Plonker
about what had happened years ago, who being a bit on the thick
side - then decided to get all self righteous by threatening
to report dad to the police, quite overlooking the
fact that he'd be dropping mummy in it as well.

quote

" But text messages between Huhne and his son Peter, sent
in May 2011 and declared admissible in court by Mr Justice
Sweeney, revealed Peter put pressure on Huhne to "accept
responsibility" for the offence.

Peter said: "We all know that you were driving and you put
pressure on Mum. Accept it or face the consequences. You've
told me that was the case. Or will this be another lie?"

Huhne replied: "I have no intention of sending Mum to
Holloway Prison for three months. Dad"

A year ago, Huhne told reporters he was "innocent of these
charges" and vowed to fight them in the courts

His son asked: "Are you going to accept your responsibility
or do I have to contact the police and tell them what you told
me?" later adding: "It's not about her its about your accepting
your responsibility to me."

/quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21320992

To repeat "Your responsibility to me".

What a prize ****.

All three of them are as thick as pig ****.

Now what a surprise "Vicky Pryce 'wanted revenge' over Chris Huhne's affair"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21333624


You were right first time, not me. It was the wife who brought
him down by going to the Sunday Times. Although the son's
emails were earlier, they never became public until later


The journalist - Sunday Times political editor Isabel Oakeshott -
isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the box either. Given that
she sent an email to Pryce which on the face of it seems to
be advising her to perjure herself if put on trial-

quote

Ms Oakeshott later replied: "The bottom line is that
this story will bring Chris down if you are prepared
to go on the record, with the minor risk this carries.

"I think you can make yourself out to be very much the
honourable one, saying it has very much been on your
conscience ever since, saying you knew it was wrong
but you were bullied into it."

quote

"Make yourself out to be" - i.e. pretend to be something
you're not when being questioned under Oath.

Advice sent in an email which might well be produced in
a Court of Law.

A journalist desperate for a story might well
encourage Pryce to go ahead and make all sorts
of promises, and give all sorts of advice, but as
with a solicitor's sometimes questionable advice,
none of this would ever be committed to paper,
let alone an email.

It's very hard to work out quite who's the most stupid
person in all of this.


michael adams

....













--
Adam

michael adams wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. He knobbed another woman
and he got caught by the wife.

The fact that it was 10 years ago that she took the 3 points for
speeding does not matter to her. Her claws are out. You cannot
reason with them when you have not been caught with your
trousers down - so what chance do you have when you have been
caught shagging someone else?

Except his wife had nothing to do with it. As she knew as
well as he did that is saying anything at all she'd simply be
landing herself in the **** as well. As its a bit late
for her to be coming up with excuses.


Huhne made the big mistake of telling his son, Peter the Plonker
about what had happened years ago, who being a bit on the thick
side - then decided to get all self righteous by threatening
to report dad to the police, quite overlooking the
fact that he'd be dropping mummy in it as well.

quote

" But text messages between Huhne and his son Peter, sent
in May 2011 and declared admissible in court by Mr Justice
Sweeney, revealed Peter put pressure on Huhne to "accept
responsibility" for the offence.

Peter said: "We all know that you were driving and you put
pressure on Mum. Accept it or face the consequences. You've
told me that was the case. Or will this be another lie?"

Huhne replied: "I have no intention of sending Mum to
Holloway Prison for three months. Dad"

A year ago, Huhne told reporters he was "innocent of these
charges" and vowed to fight them in the courts

His son asked: "Are you going to accept your responsibility
or do I have to contact the police and tell them what you told
me?" later adding: "It's not about her its about your accepting
your responsibility to me."

/quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21320992

To repeat "Your responsibility to me".

What a prize ****.

All three of them are as thick as pig ****.

Now what a surprise "Vicky Pryce 'wanted revenge' over Chris
Huhne's affair" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21333624


You were right first time, not me. It was the wife who brought
him down by going to the Sunday Times. Although the son's
emails were earlier, they never became public until later

I was not points scoring - I just know scorned women better than most
people:-)

It's very hard to work out quite who's the most stupid
person in all of this.

There is a choice of 3:-).

1. Chris - he decided to have an affair with a bisexual woman and did not
ask his wife to join in for a threesome.

2. Vicky - who says "Chris committed a crime 10 years ago and I know that as
I helped him do it" exactly one week after she found out that she had not
been invited for a threesome or did not like the taste of another womans
juice on his cock.

3. Their son. Who I would very much like to take on as an apprentice and
welcome him into the real world:-) Apart from defending his Mum he has not
actually done a lot wrong IMHO. And who knows what Mummy asked him to say
and do? Sure he's a dick, but look at his parents.



--
Adam

On 05/02/13 16:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
FFS, they're adults. If people in that privileged position can't be
expected to take responsibility for their actions, who can?

And that is the pint. With privilege comes responsibility: something the
Labour party and now it seems the limp dims, never realised.

Oh, c'mon. It's hardly a party matter. Plenty of Tories been caught doing
what they shouldn't too.


BUT they expected to get sacked for it.

Only T Bliar can tear up the rule books, grin and say 'well I thought it
was OK' and get acquitted by a crony led public enquiry ...

If a builder takes an hour off to nob the local tart, its not even news.
If the Pope does, it threatens the whole catholic church.

He'd probably get a round of applause at his age.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
FFS, they're adults. If people in that privileged position can't
be expected to take responsibility for their actions, who can?

And that is the pint. With privilege comes responsibility:
something the Labour party and now it seems the limp dims, never
realised.

Oh, c'mon. It's hardly a party matter. Plenty of Tories been caught
doing what they shouldn't too.

If a builder takes an hour off to nob the local tart, its not even
news. If the Pope does, it threatens the whole catholic church.

He'd probably get a round of applause at his age.

Not if he used a condom;-)

--
Adam

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:18:38 -0000 Arw wrote :
I always speed on motorways when safe to do so.

The general view of Australia from outside is that it's a free
and easy sort of place, but when it comes to speed limits
definitely not. I drive the Hume Highway (first part of the
Melbourne-Sydney motorway) and the speed limits are 100/110kph
(62/68mph) and this are observed almost 100%. Camera tolerance
is 2/3kph (2mph) and many of them are point to point so no use
slowing down as you pass a camera and speeding up afterwards.

The reality, of course, is that it's not speed that is the
danger, rather following too close and other bad driving. I
nearly met my maker last week when someone in an outer lane
realised he was about to miss his exit - his trailer went
across the front of my car with inches to spare and my heart
was thumping for a long time afterward.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

On 05/02/13 22:46, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:18:38 -0000 Arw wrote :
I always speed on motorways when safe to do so.

The general view of Australia from outside is that it's a free
and easy sort of place, but when it comes to speed limits
definitely not. I drive the Hume Highway (first part of the
Melbourne-Sydney motorway) and the speed limits are 100/110kph
(62/68mph) and this are observed almost 100%. Camera tolerance
is 2/3kph (2mph) and many of them are point to point so no use
slowing down as you pass a camera and speeding up afterwards.

The reality, of course, is that it's not speed that is the
danger, rather following too close and other bad driving. I
nearly met my maker last week when someone in an outer lane
realised he was about to miss his exit - his trailer went
across the front of my car with inches to spare and my heart
was thumping for a long time afterward.

Enjoy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eNcjMfMHRo


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

Tony Bryer wrote
Arw wrote

I always speed on motorways when safe to do so.

I speed on all roads when its safe to do
so and aren't likely to get caught doing it.

The general view of Australia from outside is that it's a free
and easy sort of place, but when it comes to speed limits
definitely not. I drive the Hume Highway (first part of the
Melbourne-Sydney motorway) and the speed limits are
100/110kph (62/68mph) and this are observed almost
100%. Camera tolerance is 2/3kph (2mph)

Only in Victoria, not anywhere else.

and many of them are point to point so no use slowing
down as you pass a camera and speeding up afterwards.

The reality, of course, is that it's not speed that is the
danger, rather following too close and other bad driving.
I nearly met my maker last week when someone in an outer
lane realised he was about to miss his exit - his trailer went
across the front of my car with inches to spare and my heart
was thumping for a long time afterward.

On 5 Feb, 17:03, "michael adams" wrote:
"Man at B&Q" wrote in ...

On 5 Feb, 12:39, "michael adams" wrote:

Huhne had no choice but to continue lying.

Bull****.

Otherwise his wife
too would be charged with conspiring to pervert the course of
justice.

So she should be.

A crime crying out to heaven for vengeance.

It's a crime. No need to dres it up.

On the News today some scumbags running a care service for
the elderly shut up shop and without telling anyone
left an old lady to starve to death.

Howver they probably didn't beak any law.

So, campaign for a change in the law. Heads can roll (though they
probably will not) without any crime being committed.

Lying in public office.

What's public office got to do with it ?

A lot.

Why should people in public office be expected to be
any more honest than anyone else ?

They are supposed to set an example and be squeaky clean.

People in public office should be judged on their ability to
do the job they're being paid to do. Nothing else

Wrong.

If they choose to lie regarding a matter which has nothing
to do with the execution of that office so as to keep
their wife out of prison, then that's their own business.
Nobody else's.

Wrong again.

MBQ

On Feb 5, 8:21*pm, "ARW" wrote:
michael adams wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
michael adams wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message
...
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. He knobbed another woman
and he got caught by the wife.

The fact that it was 10 years ago that she took the 3 points for
speeding does not matter to her. Her claws are out. You cannot
reason with them when you have not been caught with your
trousers down - so what chance do you have when you have been
caught shagging someone else?

Except his wife had nothing to do with it. As she knew as
well as he did that is saying anything at all she'd simply be
landing herself in the **** as well. As its a bit late
for her to be coming up with excuses.

Huhne made the big mistake of telling his son, Peter the Plonker
about what had happened years ago, who being a bit on the thick
side - then decided to get all self righteous by threatening
to report dad to the police, quite overlooking the
fact that he'd be dropping mummy in it as well.

quote

" But text messages between Huhne and his son Peter, sent
in May 2011 and declared admissible in court by Mr Justice
Sweeney, revealed Peter put pressure on Huhne to "accept
responsibility" for the offence.

Peter said: "We all know that you were driving and you put
pressure on Mum. Accept it or face the consequences. You've
told me that was the case. Or will this be another lie?"

Huhne replied: "I have no intention of sending Mum to
Holloway Prison for three months. Dad"

A year ago, Huhne told reporters he was "innocent of these
charges" and vowed to fight them in the courts

His son asked: "Are you going to accept your responsibility
or do I have to contact the police and tell them what you told
me?" later adding: "It's not about her its about your accepting
your responsibility to me."

/quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21320992

To repeat "Your responsibility to me".

What a prize ****.

All three of them are as thick as pig ****.

Now what a surprise "Vicky Pryce 'wanted revenge' over Chris
Huhne's affair"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21333624

You were right first time, not me. It was the wife who brought
him down by going to the Sunday Times. Although the son's
emails were earlier, they never became public until later

I was not points scoring - *I just know scorned women better than most
people:-)

It's very hard to work out quite who's the most stupid
person in all of this.

There is a choice of 3:-).

1. Chris - he decided to have an affair with a bisexual woman and did not
ask his wife to join in for a threesome.

2. Vicky - who says "Chris committed a crime 10 years ago and I know that as
I helped him do it" exactly one week after she found out that she had not
been invited for a threesome or did not like the taste of another womans
juice on his cock.

3. Their son. Who I would very much like to take on as an apprentice and
welcome him into the real world:-) Apart from defending his Mum he has not
actually done a lot wrong IMHO. And who knows what Mummy asked him to say
and do? Sure he's a dick, but look at his parents.

He sounds thick enough for you to get along with.

On 06/02/13 17:14, Man at B&Q wrote:


People in public office should be judged on their ability to
do the job they're being paid to do. Nothing else

Wrong.


Well Huhnes public office did involve lying to the public about
renewable energy and climate change so he has shown his fitness for it
surely?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"michael adams" writes:

To repeat "Your responsibility to me".

What a prize ****.

How sharper than a serpent's tooth................

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There are some who say 'it was only a speeding fine'

Never mind. They got Al Capone for tax evasion.

One Cnut at a time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21516473

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot get a 10-2
majority is because of "the jury of eight women and four men" are split 8 -
4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and nothing to do with justice.



--
Adam

On 20/02/2013 18:36, ARW wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There are some who say 'it was only a speeding fine'

Never mind. They got Al Capone for tax evasion.

One Cnut at a time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21516473

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot get a 10-2
majority is because of "the jury of eight women and four men" are split 8 -
4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and nothing to do with justice.



From the limited bit I heard, it sounded as if they were in competition
with planks for thickness. But who really knows? At least at the moment.

--
Rod

On 20/02/13 18:36, ARW wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
There are some who say 'it was only a speeding fine'

Never mind. They got Al Capone for tax evasion.

One Cnut at a time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21516473

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

So is it a nobbled jury or is the real reason that they cannot get a 10-2
majority is because of "the jury of eight women and four men" are split 8 -
4? IMHO it's a battle of the sexes and nothing to do with justice.



I heard the beeb say that the judge said that the jury's questions
'betrayed deep ignorance of the judicial process' so who knows?


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.