Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

So, Huhne and the missus are released from jail after serving 8 weeks of an eight month sentence...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 43 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 14 May 2013 15:04:08 BDT
Spin says:
So much for the courts statement at the time that they were delivering a sentence that would let people know they cannot evade the law...One law for them, another for us... C'est la guerre.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2013 16:07:29 BDT
Spinny...do you think they should have been locked up longer? If so, why?

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2013 16:19:04 BDT
Spin says:
Simon: I think the case was a waste of time and money. My objection concerns the courts claim that it was all worth it. and then letting them go afyer proclaiming the worth and value of "Law". I do not give a toss about Huhne, his sex life or the bitchiness resulting from his actions; I am concerned with the abuse of the law which is obviously not only committed by criminals.

Posted on 14 May 2013 17:03:17 BDT
On the news last night they said that it's common practice to let non violent offenders out after they have served 1/4 of their sentence. Fear not, they will be tagged, their neighbours are safe from attack...lol.

Keeping them in prison for another six months would have cost taxpayers £50,000. Now they can support themselves from their guest appearances on magazine shows and panel games, 'Celebrity Big Brother' and 'I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here' (great title for them). They have signed book deals - Vicky will write about how prison treats women...nice. Chris is said to have been writing a book at taxpayers expense whilst inside. They are talking to C4 about an afternoon show,'Chris and Vicky', modelled on the much missed wonderful 'Richard and Judy'.

Chis has given the standard 'prison humbled me, I'm a better human now' interview outside his multimillion pound Central London home...they are changed people, justice has been served...and they are ready to make positive contributions to society.

I would have preferred that they had been sentenced to 8 mths community service, 40 hours a week looking after folk in geriatric wards, say. That would have saved us taxpayers another £16,000 in prison costs, plus the added value to society of the work they did washing, feeding and entertaining old people....that would have humbled 'em.

Posted on 14 May 2013 17:26:34 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2013 20:04:06 BDT
The fount agrees with his beloved...prison was a silly option.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 May 2013 20:04:40 BDT
Spinny...try not to twist beloved Gordon's words.

Posted on 15 May 2013 15:59:41 BDT
Very affluent people: a very hefty fine should have been imposed. Prison should be for those that are a menace to society in general.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 May 2013 16:13:46 BDT
Spin says:
Dance: I agree. Hit them where their conscience is; in the wallet.

Posted on 15 May 2013 17:15:16 BDT
Maybe it's just me but I don't think they should have gone to prison in the first place when some offences get far less "punishment" and even cautions etc. I mean come on he was speeding and lying and he gets sent to prison? No wonder this country is screwed up.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 00:31:35 BDT
Because they are rich and famous they get a shorter sentence - it has to do with slipping the judge a few hundred quid for a shorter term.

Posted on 17 May 2013 10:29:55 BDT
UK prisons are full to overflowing; ALL prisoners are now being released early regardless of the severity of their crimes to free up space for newcomers.

These two benefitted from the current situation, that's all.

Posted on 17 May 2013 13:17:47 BDT
eddie says:
i think that the sentence was unfair. I would have given both of them four months each and made them serve it in the same cell.
Ed.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 13:24:29 BDT
TomC says:
Torture is illegal in this country. Well - in theory, anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 19:13:37 BDT
T. S. C. says:
'Gordon Bennett says:

On the news last night they said that it's common practice to let non violent offenders out after they have served 1/4 of their sentence. Fear not, they will be tagged, their neighbours are safe from attack...lol.

Keeping them in prison for another six months would have cost taxpayers £50,000. Now they can support themselves from their guest appearances on magazine shows and panel games, 'Celebrity Big Brother' and 'I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here' (great title for them). They have signed book deals - Vicky will write about how prison treats women...nice. Chris is said to have been writing a book at taxpayers expense whilst inside. They are talking to C4 about an afternoon show,'Chris and Vicky', modelled on the much missed wonderful 'Richard and Judy'.

Chis has given the standard 'prison humbled me, I'm a better human now' interview outside his multimillion pound Central London home...they are changed people, justice has been served...and they are ready to make positive contributions to society.

I would have preferred that they had been sentenced to 8 mths community service, 40 hours a week looking after folk in geriatric wards, say. That would have saved us taxpayers another £16,000 in prison costs, plus the added value to society of the work they did washing, feeding and entertaining old people....that would have humbled 'em.'

Now you are talking good sense, Gordy Old Sport. We all know that they were going to get off lightly didn't we, don't the rich, posh, connected types always do? And now, back to opulence and affluence with their book deals - oh how wonderful! We common folk will be able to buy their wonderfully illuminating hard times in the dungeons of hell they were punished in and make them even richer! Hurrah!

Seriously, your last paragraph was spot on. Making them do something useful might have been a first for them both hey, and might have seen them see what reality is like for many more less privileged people, and saved us lots of money, and from writing their books too.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 19:38:06 BDT
T. S. C. says:
'Spin says:

Dance: I agree. Hit them where their conscience is; in the wallet.'

And that, dear boy, is reality. Yes, they should have fined them till the pips squeaked; but did anyone really expect justice? You'd be naive if you did. However, when it really boils down to it, they are not murderers are they?

Posted on 17 May 2013 22:36:50 BDT
Last edited by the author on 17 May 2013 22:38:25 BDT
Lets see now he was a person who held high office and Justice Minister. He was loudly in favour of harsh punishment for all crime. Taking that into consideration he should have received8 months just for jaywalking and considerably longer for making a mockery of law and committing perjury.

The missus should have got a longer sentence just for that self satisfied, smug, preening expression constantly on her mug during the trial.

As they could afford it perhaps the addition of a fine to cover the costs of imprisonment would have been a nice Brucie bonus

In reply to an earlier post on 17 May 2013 22:51:17 BDT
Yes it is.
The Legal system here in the UK is an adversarial one. which basically means that the outcome is governed by the depths of one's pockets.

If I can afford a Q.C and you can only afford a 'Legal executive/clerk from Lockett, Fokkitt, and Sodditt & Co, then I win.

Guilt or otherwise has nothing to do with it sadly.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 May 2013 10:34:18 BDT
David Groom says:
Mr D. L. Martin,

'If I can afford a Q.C and you can only afford a 'Legal executive/clerk from Lockett, Fokkitt, and Sodditt & Co, then I win.'

This is foolish rhetoric, ungrounded in reality. There's the small matter of evidence and the integrity of the jury to overcome. At the end of the day, the most expensive barrister in the world won't get you off if the evidence and jury says otherwise.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 May 2013 15:24:47 BDT
Spin says:
TSC: Personally, Huhne, his Wife and hid lover are of no concern to me. It is the failure of the Law that bugs me. The judge openly proclaimed, in response to accusations that the case was a waste of time and money, that any law that is broken, no matter how trivial, shalt be met with the process of "Law" and the full force of justice applied.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 May 2013 15:36:50 BDT
T. S. C. says:
'Mr. D. L. Martin says:

Yes it is.
The Legal system here in the UK is an adversarial one. which basically means that the outcome is governed by the depths of one's pockets.

If I can afford a Q.C and you can only afford a 'Legal executive/clerk from Lockett, Fokkitt, and Sodditt & Co, then I win.

Guilt or otherwise has nothing to do with it sadly.'

You're absolutely right. Justice has nothing to do with it either.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 May 2013 15:41:23 BDT
T. S. C. says:
'Spin says:

TSC: Personally, Huhne, his Wife and hid lover are of no concern to me. It is the failure of the Law that bugs me. The judge openly proclaimed, in response to accusations that the case was a waste of time and money, that any law that is broken, no matter how trivial, shalt be met with the process of "Law" and the full force of justice applied.'

The reality is that people who are powerful or have connections or are wealthy will always evade justice; that's just the way it is sadly. Money talks and everything else walks. When people at the top mess up, even seriously, they get off lightly, always do. When people who aren't connected mess up, then usually the law comes down on them like a ton of bricks. The bankers at the top end of the wealth and power spectrum, who helped cause the financial meltdown, haven't even been called to book and are back getting their million pound bonuses. But somehow the poor, and especially vile the disabled are paying the price for this aren't they? Justice? No. Law? Possibly. Reality? Yes.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 May 2013 15:56:37 BDT
Antenna says:
What would be gained by keeping them in longer? The point has been made that the rich and famous are not above the law and must pay for perjury. If prison has been a humiliating deterrent for them, it will have "worked" after eight weeks as well as twelve or sixteen, plus less public money is wasted keeping them locked up longer. I gather they both plan to write lucrative books on the experience, which will help pay their court costs, and this seems ironical, but both have paid the real prize of the ruin to careers which must have been important to them, plus the damage to personal relationships, and the media attacks.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 May 2013 16:35:57 BDT
Spin says:
Antena? What would be gained? A respect for the Law. Would you be happy if a serious criminal got out after a year or two of 20 year sentence? What is the point of a sentence if it is not implemented?

Posted on 18 May 2013 21:39:19 BDT
25% in prison (if reduction for good behaviour applies)
25% on home imprisonment (HDK - Ankle tag)
50% on parole/probation/licence.

Spin
What's with the red top tabloid style faux outrageous indignation?
Are you doing some kind of Alf Garnet role reversal....?
Will your boyfriend arrive with a boot polished face and rape you with a banana as 'rehabilitation and re-education'.

Or are you genuinely as clichéd and anachronistic as your posts would indicate?
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  15
Total posts:  43
Initial post:  14 May 2013
Latest post:  21 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions