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.



--
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.

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:23:53 +0000, 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.

It could have been much better though.

Remember it was only a toss up as to him or Clegg for the party
leadership, so it could have been "Deputy Prime Minister dragged off
to gaol". How that appeals!

On 04/02/13 16:08, Ericp wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:23:53 +0000, 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.

It could have been much better though.

Remember it was only a toss up as to him or Clegg for the party
leadership, so it could have been "Deputy Prime Minister dragged off
to gaol". How that appeals!

a 'toss up' exactly describes the pair of them.


--
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.

On 04/02/13 16:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
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.

He'll get at least six months in the slammer.

If you thought Usenet was bad..see what his son thinks

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ationship.html

Thank you Peter Huhne, for saying what the rest of the country felt like
saying...



--
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.

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?

The trick with politicians is to find one who can lie and cheat with the
country in mind not for themselves.
Mind you I guess Nixon was doing that in his mind when he got caught doing
daft things in the states.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


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.



--
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.

The Natural Philosopher writes:

On 04/02/13 16:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
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.

He'll get at least six months in the slammer.

If you thought Usenet was bad..see what his son thinks

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ationship.html

Thank you Peter Huhne, for saying what the rest of the country felt
like saying...

No wonder his son hates him. "I understand that I have really offended
you but I hope that the passage of time will provide some perspective".

He's your son, you patronising ****, not your constituent.

On 04/02/2013 18:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"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?

He's pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice (by trying to
palm his points off on his wife).

She's trying to plead not guilty on the grounds that he made her do it.


I Didn't Want To Do It (revised version)

I must tell you what I'm feeling
The very mention of your name
Sends my vomit to the ceiling
You know you made me hate you



(Apologies to Joseph McCarthy.)

--
Rod

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:11:16 +0000, Alexander Lamaison
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher writes:

If you thought Usenet was bad..see what his son thinks

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ationship.html

Thank you Peter Huhne, for saying what the rest of the country felt
like saying...

Well, I don't think either party comes out particularly shining with
saintliness out of that! What a miserable record of the state of
family life! If that is anything like normal, it makes me glad I
never had children.

I had many, many reasons not to respect my own parents - I do not
intend to go down the nowadays fashionable road of public confession
over what is anyway long since past, but the fact that I had five
would give you possible clues as to some of the LESSER reasons why.
Nevertheless, I never used language like that to any of my parents,
even when they were openly cursing me.

No wonder his son hates him. "I understand that I have really offended
you but I hope that the passage of time will provide some perspective".

He's your son, you patronising ****, not your constituent.

It is patronising, but his son is still only 18.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive writes:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:11:16 +0000, Alexander Lamaison
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher writes:

If you thought Usenet was bad..see what his son thinks

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ationship.html

Thank you Peter Huhne, for saying what the rest of the country felt
like saying...

No wonder his son hates him. "I understand that I have really offended
you but I hope that the passage of time will provide some perspective".

He's your son, you patronising ****, not your constituent.

It is patronising, but his son is still only 18.

Which is why using westminster-speak like this to address him is such a
stupid idea.

Maybe that would have been considered unacceptable some years ago (I'm
not going to try and guess your age :-P) but the way his son reacts to
him seems pretty standard to me.

Alex

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

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"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?

He's pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice (by trying to
palm his points off on his wife).


I cannot imagine why anyone would do something like that.

--
Adam

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?


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



--
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.

On 04/02/13 18:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"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?

He's pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice (by trying to
palm his points off on his wife).

She's trying to plead not guilty on the grounds that he made her do it.

Actually, she may not have had the chance. Summons comes through door,
Huhne fills it in and says 'wifey was driving'

At that point she has very little option beyond shopping him there and
then, and breaking up the marriage, or taking the hit.

She is only complicit by her failure to shop him at the time.



--
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.

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:32:31 -0000, "ARW"
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

He's pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice (by trying to
palm his points off on his wife).

Which would, of course, not help his relationship with either his wife
or his son.

I cannot imagine why anyone would do something like that.

In order to avoid the scandal of being an MP in breach of the law.
Time to remind the group about Gerald Nabarro:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/de...yed.features11
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/02/13 18:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"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?

He's pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice (by trying
to palm his points off on his wife).

She's trying to plead not guilty on the grounds that he made her do
it.
Actually, she may not have had the chance. Summons comes through door,
Huhne fills it in and says 'wifey was driving'

At that point she has very little option beyond shopping him there and
then, and breaking up the marriage, or taking the hit.

She is only complicit by her failure to shop him at the time.

I know someone who received a NIP, filled it an and then took the offered
fixed penalty. It was only when her driving license came back she realised
that she was in Spain on the day she "was" speeding and that it was her
husband who was driving her car:-).

--
Adam

On 04/02/2013 19:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/02/13 18:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"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?

He's pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice (by trying to
palm his points off on his wife).

She's trying to plead not guilty on the grounds that he made her do it.

Actually, she may not have had the chance. Summons comes through door,
Huhne fills it in and says 'wifey was driving'

At that point she has very little option beyond shopping him there and
then, and breaking up the marriage, or taking the hit.

What happens next is that a second summons arrives, addressed to the
nominated driver. I'm sure that if said party kicked off and said "no
way" that it would be perfectly feasible for the originally accused
person (ie the registered owner) to say "oh yes, now I remember,
actually it *was* me driving the car that day", and to cop for the
offence without any other offence being committed.

She is only complicit by her failure to shop him at the time.

The event happened years ago, when they were apparently happily married.
Who knows what exactly happened? I'm sure it's extremely commonplace
between couples for one to cop the points if they have a clean licence,
in order to let the guilty one get away with it (who otherwise would
lose his licence and maybe the family's livelihood with it).

It was only after the Huhnes fell out that this incident became public.
--
David

Lobster wrote:
On 04/02/2013 19:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/02/13 18:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"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?

He's pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice (by
trying to palm his points off on his wife).

She's trying to plead not guilty on the grounds that he made her
do it.
Actually, she may not have had the chance. Summons comes through
door, Huhne fills it in and says 'wifey was driving'

At that point she has very little option beyond shopping him there
and then, and breaking up the marriage, or taking the hit.

What happens next is that a second summons arrives, addressed to the
nominated driver. I'm sure that if said party kicked off and said "no
way" that it would be perfectly feasible for the originally accused
person (ie the registered owner) to say "oh yes, now I remember,
actually it *was* me driving the car that day", and to cop for the
offence without any other offence being committed.

She is only complicit by her failure to shop him at the time.

The event happened years ago, when they were apparently happily
married. Who knows what exactly happened? I'm sure it's extremely
commonplace between couples for one to cop the points if they have a
clean licence, in order to let the guilty one get away with it (who
otherwise would lose his licence and maybe the family's livelihood
with it).




It was only after the Huhnes fell out that this incident became
public.


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?


--
Adam

"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 ****.



michael adams

....




--
Adam

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.



--
Adam

"Alexander Lamaison" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher writes:

On 04/02/13 16:40, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
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.

He'll get at least six months in the slammer.

If you thought Usenet was bad..see what his son thinks

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ationship.html

Thank you Peter Huhne, for saying what the rest of the country felt
like saying...

No wonder his son hates him. "I understand that I have really offended
you but I hope that the passage of time will provide some perspective".

He's your son, you patronising ****, not your constituent.

What a great bloke, we should all look up to him. He and his pals are
running the country FFS.
No wonder we're in the ****.
Thing is, these ****s never seem to learn. They do the craziest things
without a second thought.
Libs, errrr Labs, errrrr Cons for government? YMBFJ.

On Feb 5, 12:20*am, "ARW" wrote:
Lobster wrote:
On 04/02/2013 19:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/02/13 18:43, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"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?

He's pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice (by
trying to palm his points off on his wife).

She's trying to plead not guilty on the grounds that he made her
do it.
Actually, she may not have had the chance. Summons comes through
door, Huhne fills it in and says 'wifey was driving'

At that point she has very little option beyond shopping him there
and then, and breaking up the marriage, *or taking the hit.

What happens next is that a second summons arrives, addressed to the
nominated driver. *I'm sure that if said party kicked off and said "no
way" that it would be perfectly feasible for the originally accused
person (ie the registered owner) to say "oh yes, now I remember,
actually it *was* me driving the car that day", and to cop for the
offence without any other offence being committed.

She is only complicit by her failure to shop him at the time.

The event happened years ago, when they were apparently happily
*married. Who knows what exactly happened? *I'm sure it's extremely
commonplace between couples for one to cop the points if they have a
clean licence, in order to let the guilty one get away with it (who
otherwise would lose his licence and maybe the family's livelihood
with it).
It was only after the Huhnes fell out that this incident became
public.

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?

--
Adam

You seem to have experience in this sort of thing?

"ARW" wrote in message
...
Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"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?

He's pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice (by trying to
palm his points off on his wife).


I cannot imagine why anyone would do something like that.

what:

ask

or

say Yes

Hundreds do and get away with it, but I think you know that

tim

"Java Jive" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:32:31 -0000, "ARW"
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:

He's pleading guilty to perverting the course of justice (by trying to
palm his points off on his wife).

Which would, of course, not help his relationship with either his wife
or his son.

At the time they were all lovey-dovey!

It's only when he went off with his bit on the side that it all blew up

tim

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.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, try management *

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

"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.

Which is what you were claiming above.

All Huhne has done by confessing is drop her further in the ****.

Given the animosity to shown by his dopey son in the emails,
given she hadn't confessed, the two of them could quite
possibly have brazened it out. And claimed the son was
deranged and was making things up based on rumours
he'd heard.

Peter the Plonker is hardly the first 17 year old whose
parents have split up, and Hulne isn't the first husband
to be caught lying.

The irony of all this, that Mumsy is just as guilty as
Daddy in the eyes of the Law, regardless of the fact that
it was him who was playing away, seems to have been lost on
the dopey son, in his desire for "justice" Given which it
looks as if Dad must have pulled a few strings to get him
into Oxford in the first place, maybe even paid someone
to take his exams.

Now there's gratitude for you.


michael adams

....









--
Adam

"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 ?

As a fully paid up member of the "Entitlement Generation"-
"because I'm worth it", The self serving little **** was more
than happy to bleat on to to Huhne about "Your responsibility
to me". So what about his responsibility to his parents ?
To keep them both out of Court for one.


michael adams

....




michael adams

....




--
*If at first you don't succeed, try management *

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

The Natural Philosopher spake thus:

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.

Ironic that his name is pronounced "hoon".

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoon

On 05/02/2013 11:00, Scion wrote:
The Natural Philosopher spake thus:

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.

Ironic that his name is pronounced "hoon".

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hoon

New definition to me!

But maybe this alternative (same link) doesn't fit quite so well:

"In the British political context, a member of the British Labour Party.

What a hoon!"

--
Rod

On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:22:04 +0000, Alexander Lamaison
wrote:

Which is why using westminster-speak like this to address him is such a
stupid idea.

I don't see it as Westminster-speak, more as one person trying to
pacify another. If you didn't know the background story and just read
the excerpts, you'd think: "What an ungrateful little *******!"

Maybe that would have been considered unacceptable some years ago (I'm
not going to try and guess your age :-P) but the way his son reacts to
him seems pretty standard to me.

He was determined not to be pacified, because he is something of a
fool who didn't realise that by blackmailing his own father, he was
damaging his mother almost as much.

As has been said elsewhere, who does he think paid for everything in
his privileged Western lifestyle? I repeat, I believe I had much
worse things to contend with in more than one of my five parents, but
I do not recall ever stooping to blackmail or abuse of them.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
"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 ?

I've not seen any of the details of what anyone actually said in emails or
whatever.

As a fully paid up member of the "Entitlement Generation"-
"because I'm worth it", The self serving little **** was more
than happy to bleat on to to Huhne about "Your responsibility
to me". So what about his responsibility to his parents ?
To keep them both out of Court for one.

Huhne broke the law by speeding. No big deal. Getting someone else to take
the penalty for this is, though. Perjury. Then lying incessantly about it
afterwards. Hardly a decent example to his kids.

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"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.

she was the original person who shopped.

the texts with the son came later

tim

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
"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 ?

I've not seen any of the details of what anyone actually said in emails or
whatever.

As a fully paid up member of the "Entitlement Generation"-
"because I'm worth it", The self serving little **** was more
than happy to bleat on to to Huhne about "Your responsibility
to me". So what about his responsibility to his parents ?
To keep them both out of Court for one.

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.


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.


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 ?


michael adams

....

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

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

On Feb 5, 10:38*am, "michael adams" wrote:

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 ?

As a fully paid up member of the "Entitlement Generation"-
"because I'm worth it", The self serving little **** was more
than happy to bleat on to to Huhne about "Your responsibility
to me". So what about his responsibility to his parents ?
To keep them both out of Court for one.

I wonder how many people on here feel their parents only fed them for
eighteen years on the tacit understanding they'd perjure themselves
for them if they were ever caught in an act of criminality?

Perhaps the lad felt his societal obligations to stand up to a crooked
criminal politician outweighed some spurious "blood" loyalty. Seems
to me he's done well to grow up with some principles despite being
raised by a thoroughgoing ****e of a father.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#axzz2K0d9Po2D

If Huhn snr. were a man rather than the pious self-serving **** he
reveals himself as in those text exchanges, he'd have taken the points
and chowed down on it rather than trying to palm them of on his wife
and drag others into his spineless immorality.

It's a shame they can't jail his barrister as well for blustering on
about "gossamer-thin evidence".

On 05/02/2013 12:41, mike wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:38 am, "michael adams" wrote:

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 ?

As a fully paid up member of the "Entitlement Generation"-
"because I'm worth it", The self serving little **** was more
than happy to bleat on to to Huhne about "Your responsibility
to me". So what about his responsibility to his parents ?
To keep them both out of Court for one.

I wonder how many people on here feel their parents only fed them for
eighteen years on the tacit understanding they'd perjure themselves
for them if they were ever caught in an act of criminality?

Perhaps the lad felt his societal obligations to stand up to a crooked
criminal politician outweighed some spurious "blood" loyalty. Seems
to me he's done well to grow up with some principles despite being
raised by a thoroughgoing ****e of a father.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#axzz2K0d9Po2D

If Huhn snr. were a man rather than the pious self-serving **** he
reveals himself as in those text exchanges, he'd have taken the points
and chowed down on it rather than trying to palm them of on his wife
and drag others into his spineless immorality.

It's a shame they can't jail his barrister as well for blustering on
about "gossamer-thin evidence".

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.)

--
Rod

"mike" wrote in message
...
On Feb 5, 10:38 am, "michael adams" wrote:

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 ?

As a fully paid up member of the "Entitlement Generation"-
"because I'm worth it", The self serving little **** was more
than happy to bleat on to to Huhne about "Your responsibility
to me". So what about his responsibility to his parents ?
To keep them both out of Court for one.

- I wonder how many people on here feel their parents only
- fed them for eighteen years on the tacit understanding they'd
- perjure themselves for them if they were ever caught in an act
- of criminality?

Nobody asked the son to perjure himself.

Had part of one of his text messages not somehow " mysteriously
appeared" in a newspaper, nobody would have been any the wiser
about any of this.

So your question is better expressed

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

....

On 05/02/13 12:53, 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.)


And now apparently the Liberal Democrats support perjury and lying to
evade prosecution:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...Democrats.html

Well one had one's suspicions that they were all bent one way or
another, but this is a tad blatant for even them 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.

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?


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.


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?

--
*Starfishes have no brains *

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

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. ;-)

--
*When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane *

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

"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"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.


My mistake. Having just seen the news. it seems she did shop him.


Although written earlier, the emails exchanges with the son
only emerged later.


michael adams

....

"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.

As a fully paid up member of the "Entitlement Generation"-
"because I'm worth it", The self serving little **** was more
than happy to bleat on to to Huhne about "Your responsibility
to me". So what about his responsibility to his parents ?

He has none. They chose to have him, not the other way round.

Alex

On 05/02/2013 13:02, michael adams wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
...
On Feb 5, 10:38 am, "michael adams" wrote:

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 ?

As a fully paid up member of the "Entitlement Generation"-
"because I'm worth it", The self serving little **** was more
than happy to bleat on to to Huhne about "Your responsibility
to me". So what about his responsibility to his parents ?
To keep them both out of Court for one.

- I wonder how many people on here feel their parents only
- fed them for eighteen years on the tacit understanding they'd
- perjure themselves for them if they were ever caught in an act
- of criminality?

Nobody asked the son to perjure himself.

Had part of one of his text messages not somehow " mysteriously
appeared" in a newspaper, nobody would have been any the wiser
about any of this.

So your question is better expressed

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

...


The whole episode is a non-event.Everyone being so bloody pious about it
is what makes me sick.