WSC Logo

wsc355 medrec

Sign up for the WSC Weekly Howl

A small portion of despair and enlightenment delivered to your inbox every Friday


First name

Welcome, Guest
Huhne's sorry now
(1 viewing) (1) Guest

TOPIC: Huhne's sorry now

posted 06-02-2013 00:22
Antepli Ejderha wrote:
So the wife was motivated by revenge in bringing this all out in the open according to the trial today, I wonder what sentence she will get?

She hasn't been found guilty of anything yet. But if she is, she surely has to go much the same way as him.
posted 06-02-2013 00:54
Seven Saxon Kings wrote:
If the argument is that he's wasted taxpayers' money, it's surely better that he repay society through community service than waste more money keeping him in prison.

Wouldn't have just bought his way out of prison like that? That doesn't sound fair.
  • Calvert
  • Michigan seems like a dream to me now
  • Posts: 7408
posted 06-02-2013 11:29
Aw man, have a look at their cunty personalised number plate.

Pair of wankers.

To the guillotine .
posted 06-02-2013 16:57
Huhne's son is Rude Kid from Viz, isn't he?

"Happy Christmas son!"

"Piss up a rope, fuckstick"
posted 09-02-2013 16:35
I'm feeling a bit sorry for Huhne at the moment. Vicki Pryce's defence depends upon her successfully arguing Huhne was a cunt- at least a bigger one than he is. He can't defend himself in the media because we'd say "Piss off, cunt". So he's reliant on the prosecution in Pryce's case putting his side.

Who's the defendant here? Maybe we're all defendants, mannnn!
  • Duncan Gardner
  • Propaganda. Cockneys taking real interest
  • Posts: 11921
posted 09-02-2013 17:13
Is she claiming duress as part of her defence? It seems to include Huhne trying to force her to have multiple abortions. Still looks pretty weak.

Author-judge Constance Briscoe and hack Isobel Oakeshott have been involved, allegedly helping VP to smear CH in various media. Might be interesting to see Oakeshott squirm, she's a bit too smug for my liking on Andrew Neil's show.
posted 09-02-2013 18:01
As I understand it, her defence has to establish something called " marital coercion"' , so this strikes me as a rather predictable and perfectly valid line of attack.
posted 20-02-2013 16:36
Jury discharged.

Sounds like the judge is not pleased with them.

BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said it was unusual for a jury to ask so many questions, including one in which they had asked whether they could speculate on what had been in Ms Pryce's mind.

He said another question was: "Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?"
posted 20-02-2013 16:45
  • NHH
  • Posts: 2943
posted 20-02-2013 16:55
Why good grief? They seem perfectly reasonable questions to ask of a judge, given they're ordinary people being asked to judge a case in which the facts of the case don't appear to be disputed, but the issue is whether martial coercion was a factor; if it was, not guilty, if it wasn't then guilty.

In other words, deciding a judgement which depends on interpreting a law from the 1920s in which very, very different assumptions about men, women, marriage, obligation, duty etc pertained seems to me very hard indeed.

Bet Huhne's kicking himself though. He could have survived, he'll be thinking now.
posted 20-02-2013 16:58
There's a few reasonable points in there but several of their questions could be summarised as "can we make things up?"
posted 20-02-2013 16:58
8. Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling that she had no choice, ie she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows and he had ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?

The judge said the question was not for this case. And Pryce had not suggested any such reasoning was behind her decision to take the points.

Is it reasonable to ask something as utterly random and unrelated as this?
posted 20-02-2013 17:04
The judge was clearly annoyed at the nature of some of the questions (including that one), which (pace NHH) strike me as prima facie evidence of their being at least one very loose cannon on the jury.
posted 20-02-2013 20:09
My thoughts entirely ursus. It seems highly likely to me that some of the questions are the outcome of a bunch of sensible jurors having failed to persuade some idiot on the jury of the (obvious to most people, especially jurors who will have just had judge's general guidance) principle that you can't, as Central Rain puts it, just make stuff up, and thinking "well we can't talk sense into him/her, but perhaps he/she will get it if we get the judge to spell it out".
Last Edit: 20-02-2013 20:10:04 by Evariste Euler Gauss.
posted 20-02-2013 23:15
The judge did allow a majority verdict, though. So it needs three idiots. Or the one idiot to be pressuasive enough to carry two others with them.
posted 21-02-2013 01:53
Don't worry, Maria Hutchings will cut through the crap with common sense. And her son who was destined to be a heart surgeon, aged 5.

Unless she's kept quiet by Grant Shapps. Imagine being unable to say much unless you get Shapps to approve it first. They had to bring fucking Boris in to make the campaign look interesting today.
posted 21-02-2013 15:57
Tory candidate fails to show for hustings on Radio 5, with the excuse that she needs preparation time for a visit to a factory with David Cameron.

Looks like they've decided to lose this by-election than have her damage the Tories nationally.
posted 21-02-2013 16:36
A legal question about the VP thing. Her legal team made claims that her husband coerced her into having abortions as part of the framework of bullying behaviour that would tally with taking the points thing, does she have to actually provide medical evidence if asked to back up this assertion at all?

As Chris Huhne isn't a defendant and can't confirm to deny this story then I'm wondering if it should be considered admissible without such evidence?
  • Wyatt Earp
  • This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal
  • Posts: 23259
posted 21-02-2013 16:54
The defence must establish marital coercion on a balance of probabilities. I should imagine lack of corroboration would somewhat weaken the claim, and that juries may take such lack of corroboration into account, but that it falls under "matters of fact" and is therefore up to them to determine using "reasonable inference".
  • Wyatt Earp
  • This whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal
  • Posts: 23259
posted 21-02-2013 16:55
I can't see grounds for ruling it inadmissible. It's neither speculation nor hearsay. It's a factual claim that may or may not be believed by the jury.
Time to create page: 0.17 seconds


© When Saturday Comes Limited 2016 | Contact | Privacy & cookies | Sitemap | Managed hosting by Latitude