Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

The attorney general is considering appealing their sentence as being unduly light.

Whatever Haystack - at the end of the day they perverted the course of justice- they knew better.

Would 9 stone 6lbs be suitable DC at the moment to stow away. Good job we can laugh and get away from the doom and gloom.

Some people are saying that a none custodial sentence would have been sufficient.
Both Hulme and Pryce are multi millionaires, so fining them even if possible (its not as far as I am aware an option re perjury) would have no effect unless it was over £1,000,000. Community service, now that would be a laugh.

Factors to be considered in the offence punishment.

1 the number of offences.
2 whether planned or spontaneous
3 whether they were persisted in
4 whether the lies told or fabrications embarked upon had any actual impact on the proceedings in question.
5 whether the activities of the offender drew in others
6 the relationship between others drawn in and the offender
7 the whole course of conduct

2 to 7 inclusive fitted their actions, so 6 out of 7 is a pretty high score.

In reality they could serve just 1 month and then be allowed un escorted home visits with sleep overs, to help them adjust to realaties of home life, then fully released in a further month, although why would they need to adjust after only 2 months is farsical.

They should at least serve half their sentences of 4 months.

The whole system is farsical as you know, only too well greekman. I was once asked in my career to change my statement as the Policemens statement was not anything like mine so I told them to get the policemen to chage theirs as I knew what I witnessed and I was not going to Crown Court to Lie for them. They would have stuck together like glue and I would have been the one behind bars and probably got 7yrs. not 4 months which I agree they will not serve.

As a retired Police Officer, I fully agree with your decision re not changing your statement.
I have often been in the position where my statement was different to a witnesses, but I always accepted that peoples views of what they had, seen, heard or felt was always going to be different to a degree and I would never have dreamt to get a witness to change their statement.

Good!!! The officers were not even in the vicinity at the time that they were saying they were. I was more disgusted that their Superior asked me to change my statement. Hey ho, that is life and believe me I have seen most and nothing surprises me.

to be less heated ..... it is a well known fact that if you get 10 people to describe a scene they have just seen, they will all vary significantly - ask greekman!

i won't bore you, but there's a well known video clip of basketball players (or similar), and a huge gorilla dances across the screen in the middle of it .... 95% of people will not spot it

Chris Hulmes girlfriend, Carina Trimingham has received a parking ticket issued after she parked her car near to the prison whilst visiting him.
Perhaps if she asks nicely he can arrange for someone else to claim they had parked her car for her.
Mind you without any penalty points at issue, there would be no point! Mind you, what would happen if they split up in the future.

Ha ha ha!!!!!

People taking points for each other is pretty common. People sometimes give false alibis and it is the same offence - perverting the course of justice. The false alibi people rarely get prosecuted unless it is a high profile case. Hulme and his wife were dealt with the way they were because they are public figures. If it had been other people, I think they would have got off with probation or community service. People frequently give the name and address of someone abroad as the driver of the car for speeding. I know of two Turkish people who have claimed that a visiting friend was driving their car at the time. In both cases the police wrote to the person in Turkey and the case was dropped.

See Cameron is ducking his promises once again.

There must be more skid marks outside the No10 bunker than anywhere in the UK

----------------------------------

"Press regulation talks 'break down'

Lord Justice Leveson's report on press regulation was published in November
Continue reading the main story
The Leveson report

Report at a glance
Q&A: The Leveson Inquiry
Victims react
After Leveson - what now?
Cross-party talks on the Leveson press reforms have broken down as David Cameron said the gap between the three main parties is "too great" to bridge, the BBC understands.

The prime minister is to publish plans for a Royal Charter to establish a new tougher press regulator on Monday."


The opposition is concerned the plans would allow newspaper owners too much discretion over the press regulation.

He is licking the arses of the press again.

Hypocrisy!

Why is he frightened of statutory legal regulation?

He seems to me, to be taking another walk down Corruption Lane.

Cameron is right. Statutory control of the press is very dangerous. Once there is a statute then politicians can amend it to suit them. It is the thin end of the wedge. How easily could the press have reported on MP's expenses if there had been a press control law. Press freedom is something that sets our country apart from others. Labour like statutory regulation because their answer to everything is to legislate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blairs-frenzied-law-making--a-new-offence-for-every-day-spent-in-office-412072.html

2006
Tony Blair's government has created more than 3,000 new criminal offences during its nine-year tenure, one for almost every day it has been in power.

Blair introduced 54% more laws than Thatcher.

Hays,

"perverting the course of justice"

There are different problems in the Hulme case:
1) Whether you think speeding is dangerous, or not, Hulme decided that he could still break the law when he wished to by exceeding the speed limit, in spite of having been fined and having points on his licence.
2) This means that when he ignored the law and contrary to the opinion of many he may have presented a danger to the public.
3) His previous fines and points had not persuaded him to change his “habits”.
4) His attempt to pervert the “course of justice” was therefore an avoidance of his responsibility and perhaps to continue aberrant behaviour.
5) The consequences of him continuing to drive would maybe to continue endangering the public.
6) That is why his “crime” was important and why deliberate “perverting the course of justice” needs custodial sentencing.
7) I feel sorry for him being foolish, but he created his own problems.
8) But sadly it seems the standards of the political leadership of the country

==========================

"I know of two Turkish people who have claimed that a visiting friend was driving their car at the time. In both cases the police wrote to the person in Turkey and the case was dropped."

If the above is suggesting that the two Turkish people were making “false claims”, then once again think you that you seem to keep “strange” company.

Hays,

Cameron is protecting the remnants of the tory party, not the public from abuse by the press.

---------------------

Legislation, will not prevent "justifiable" investigation, but may stop the "gutter press" from persecutory intrusive "investigation" into "privacy".

(If the newspapers print information, which they can justify later in court of law as being in the public interest, they should not have any fears.)

--------

Fred
You must lead a sheltered life. There is plenty of minor crime that goes undetected and unpunished (even plenty of major crime). I worked in the East End for about 8 years some time ago. I came across crime on a daily basis. It might be arranging to have a car 'stolen' to claim the insurance, people stealing the stock at the depot/factory for wine and spirits where I worked to fairly violent crimes. Probably about a quarter or even more of the people who worked there were involved in some sort of criminal enterprise at some point. For sections of the population, crime of some sort is a way of life. I used to drink in the social club there and we used to play chess. There was no shortage of players. The deal was that if you could play chess then either you were posh or you had been in prison. I worked as an IT consultant there so was regarded as posh.

Hays,

Not so.

I play chess and have dealt with a quite a few villains and even murderers, but, so far, have escaped being imprisoned or even worse been called "posh". Other epithets have been frequently used about me.

Also, met many who had dubious habits and methods of dealing.

But, being less than pure in all my actions in the past, consider myself lucky, but aware of human fallibility and sometimes have difficulty in condemning too harshly "some" others.

Surely a classic oxymoron "Cherie Bliar blogs on politics"

Had an e-mail from Microsoft re a free download of IE10, anyone have any helpful comments of if its any good or not.