egafd.com

Dunno about the Naomi Campbell case.

However, an MP elected to the last Parliament was four times more likely to be jailed than the average Briton. So given that the overwhelming majority of MPs are white.........

...male and middle-class.

The maximum sentence for perjury is actaully seven years.

And I believe from what I have seen that he was charged with perverting the course of justice which is a different offence although it basically menas the same, lying.

As my mum said, I'd rather be with a thief than a liar because at least you know where you are with a thief.

And he was pleading not guilty until his challenge to his son's texts failed.

It would be nice if one day someone in public life stood up and just took it on the chin with no trying to squirm out of it. Or perhaps that's just the way people are now.

Lock him up and throw away the key ! Well, at least for a while. Nothing
makes my bile rise more than hypocrites and especially hypocritcal
politicians. Almost none of them have a sense of honour. They all seem
liars and worse !

According to my solicitor friend Huhne is going down because "Judges do not like being lied to. What Huhne did was to attempt to "Pervert the course of justice" this gets the Judiciary really steamed up, and God help anyone who ends up infront of them charged with this.
Go and rape a scantilly clad tipsy girl on a night out and get your hand slapped. Lie to a Judge and the result is, go to jail, do not pass go do not pick up a get out of jail card. Couldn't have happened to a more obnoxious arrogant twatt then Huhne.

As I said perjury happens in court every day of the week ? why so few prosecutions?

It's difficult to prove that someone is lying when the burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond all reasonable doubt.

I haven't read the judgement but it seems that when the judge said that the son's texts were admissable that was when Huhne decided (or was advised) that the prosection would be able to discharge the burden of proof so he should change his plea. I'm not a criminal lawyer so it's not my bag, so to speak, but I hope he does not get any credit for a guilty plea.

He did come a cross as a smug person but to be fair to him it is everyone's right to put the prosecution to proof as a man is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.

And it would be funny if he got legal aid for his defence (and in this context funny means bloody outrageous) as I seem to remember the MPs in the expenses scandal did.

leatherpantsman wrote:

> It's difficult to prove that someone is lying when the burden
> of proof in a criminal case is beyond all reasonable doubt.
>
Not really. I'd imagine that most people who plead not guilty when they are the opposite and give evidence lie. When ten people say that a person was at such a place and one says they were with him, it's fair to assume that that person is committing perjury.

Melford Stevenson, the judge at the Krays trial, said that the twins had only told the truth twice at the Old Bailey: once when Reggie referred to a barrister as "a fat slob" and secondly when Ronnie accused the judge of being biased.