Vicky Pryce Verdict....

[Gibbon]

No one got hurt.

Two adults brought their marital squabbles into the public domain, and, in doing so, cost you and I, the taxpayers, a small fortune. I've just paid my corp tax, which won't even cover a fraction of the cost of it all. Now we're going to pay to keep the pair of them locked up. IMO, better to get them to pay the costs, a fine on top, and pull shopping trolleys out the local canal at weekends or some other such useful activity. And ban them both from driving for a couple of years for good measure.

I bet 1000s of people 'take points' to avoid their partner getting a ban. It's the prolonged court case and the cost of it all that's the real crime.

So breaking the law is ok if no one gets hurt? Excessive speed is more likely to result in fatalities in an accident, you're old enough now to have see the result of this surely? Therefore excessive speed is prohibited by law for the common good. This man had been caught more than once endangering the public and himself and when the Laws patience had run out via the points system he colluded with his wife to avoid the justifiable punishment.

No matter what the cost to the taxpayer this pair deserved to have their freedom taken away as punishment for treating the law as optional to them. Just because thousands of other couples may have done this does not make it right, but at least they'll keep quiet about now if they split no matter how acrimonious it is. It will also make people think twice about taking other peoples points as well.

[mudskipper]

So breaking the law is ok if no one gets hurt? Excessive speed is more likely to result in fatalities in an accident, you're old enough now to have see the result of this surely? Therefore excessive speed is prohibited by law for the common good. This man had been caught more than once endangering the public and himself and when the Laws patience had run out via the points system he colluded with his wife to avoid the justifiable punishment.

No matter what the cost to the taxpayer this pair deserved to have their freedom taken away as punishment for treating the law as optional to them. Just because thousands of other couples may have done this does not make it right, but at least they'll keep quiet about now if they split no matter how acrimonious it is. It will also make people think twice about taking other peoples points as well.

I don't think I said it was OK to break the law, nor that they should not be punished - just that perhaps there are more suitable and cost-effective punishments than prison. The punishment was not for speeding, it was for perverting the course of justice. TBH, I don't feel strongly about it!

[eek]

When seeking revenge dig two graves.


Perfect example. No one really cares about speeding points, perverting justice though is another matter and I'm glad it's being dealt with properly.

The person who seeks revenge should dig two graves.

<ZG in "Gibbon, he say" mode. >

FTFY hthbivmdi

[Gibbon]

Confucius, he say it first.

Yep, remiss of me not to quote.

[eek]

I dunno if he did say it.

I was blagging.

Definitely. The only attributed reference is to Douglas Horton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Gibbon]

I dunno if he did say it.

I was blagging.

Bugger! last time I trust a lizard

[DodgyAgent]

So breaking the law is ok if no one gets hurt? Excessive speed is more likely to result in fatalities in an accident, you're old enough now to have see the result of this surely? Therefore excessive speed is prohibited by law for the common good. This man had been caught more than once endangering the public and himself and when the Laws patience had run out via the points system he colluded with his wife to avoid the justifiable punishment.

No matter what the cost to the taxpayer this pair deserved to have their freedom taken away as punishment for treating the law as optional to them. Just because thousands of other couples may have done this does not make it right, but at least they'll keep quiet about now if they split no matter how acrimonious it is. It will also make people think twice about taking other peoples points as well.

The sentence is necessary to show that contempt of court is a serious offence. So chucking the book at two high profile political figures is what is required. As for speeding just because he broke the speed limit does not mean his speed was either excessive or dangerous. We have been brainwashed into believing that anything over an arbitrary speed limit is dangerous - it is not. It may be dangerous to still drive within the speed limit and why is it that 30 mph is safe and 31 mph is not. Let us get one thing straight which is that speed limits are designed as much for the purpose of making it easy to enforce them as they are a safety measure. If we wanted to be safe we would not drive at all.

[TheFaQQer]

Confucius, he say it first.

Twitter said it a lot yesterday. I was discussing it and what he meant last night with my children.

[TheFaQQer]

Judge who lied to police gets 16 months

[NotAllThere]

...As for speeding just because he broke the speed limit does not mean his speed was either excessive or dangerous...

What you say only applies to intelligent drivers - and there are precious few of them. Even fewer who are politicians.

People who speed are by definition pretty stupid. So what you wrote never applies.