Harman

Turk182 wrote:

I'm sorry to say this, but the government itself has removed common
sense from prosecutions. Safe drivers are now prosecuted like
criminals for being a little over the speed limit

And people still get prosecuted for nicking things from shops, it a dreadful
state of affairs.

Turk182 wrote:
On 9 Jan, 15:45, "Mortimer" wrote:
"tim...." wrote in message

...







"Adrian" wrote in message
...
(Francis Burton) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:
You are only legally required to leave details if third-party injury
or damage occurred.
she crashed into a parked car
At what speed - do you know?
She was, AIUI, manouvering out of a parking space and nudged the other
car - no damage to either car.
You don't get done for DWDC&A for that.
some people do that every time they park, they are just crap drivers
Exactly. I have a horrible feeling someone may have made a scapegoat out of
Ms Harman because of who she is. There were other factors such as
allegations of using her mobile phone and of leaving the scene without
giving her insurance details and ID, *but* she was not charged with these or
else the charges were dropped before the case got to court.

It is interesting to speculate what would have happened if she had pleaded
not guilty: would she have been convicted when the collision was so minor as
to cause no damage? Would the judge have made any comments about the police
being over-zealous in prosecuting her?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm sorry to say this, but the government itself has removed common
sense from prosecutions. Safe drivers are now prosecuted like
criminals for being a little over the speed limit and parking is
enforced with no care, respect or compassion whatever. Now Harman may
realise what it is like to be on the receiving end of such small
mindedness. Perhaps she had better go and make some new guidelines
with her barrister, expenses thieving friends.

Turk182

You're right about common sense being removed.

The *******s fined me £132 because my car tax was 3 weeks out of date at
a time when I had been off work for 4.5 months unable to walk due to
discs in my spine bursting and crushing the nerves to my legs. I was
taking drugs which put me on another planet including 125µg Fentanyl
patches and due to the drugs and the fact that I hadn't used the car in
all that time I simply forgot about to renew the tax. It was obvious to
anyone with half a brain that the car wasn't being used because it had 2
flat tyres and a flat battery (although you can see that) but nobody
would listen as to why it wasn't taxed.

The day I was told the tax was out of date I purchased it on-line and it
was back-dated to cover the period it was out but when I attempted to
explain to the court why I forgot about the tax but they didn't want to
know. I was warned by some snotty-nosed, uptight bitch that if I
appealed I would end up with a fine of around £400/500 for wasting court
time.

Mrcheerful :
any collision with some one else's property or person is a crash IMO,

Then you should resign yourself to the misunderstandings that arise when
the English language that you use is different from the English language
that everyone else uses. Violence is an essential feature of a vehicle
crash. Look the word up in a dictionary if you don't believe it.

--
Mike Barnes

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message
,
webreader writes
Of look, she was found guilty, how many on this NG said otherwise.

See
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/...d-for-careless
-driving-115875-21951871/

If you plead guilty, are you FOUND guilty?
--
Yes, because there's no trial. The only decision is what punishment to
impose.

In message , Brimstone
writes


"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message
,
webreader writes
Of look, she was found guilty, how many on this NG said otherwise.

See
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/...d-for-careless
-driving-115875-21951871/

If you plead guilty, are you FOUND guilty?
--
Yes, because there's no trial. The only decision is what punishment to
impose.

You might be right, but when you have pleaded guilty, I can't see how
you can be FOUND guilty. You simply are. In such circumstances, is it
likely that a magistrate, jury or judge would decide to find you NOT
guilty?
--
Ian

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
You might be right, but when you have pleaded guilty, I can't see how
you can be FOUND guilty. You simply are. [...]

Except in those cases where you aren't. One can plead guilty to
a crime and be FOUND guilty even if one isn't.

In such circumstances, is it
likely that a magistrate, jury or judge would decide to find you NOT
guilty?

I'm not aware of any specific case where this has happened. I
imagine that, in most cases, the non-guilt of a person pleading
guilty would be determined before trial.

Francis

On 10/01/2010 15:42, Francis Burton wrote:
In ,
Ian wrote:
You might be right, but when you have pleaded guilty, I can't see how
you can be FOUND guilty. You simply are. [...]

Except in those cases where you aren't. One can plead guilty to
a crime and be FOUND guilty even if one isn't.


Being declared guilty is a speech act in that it alters reality and
fixes it. If you are found guilty you are guilty.

In message , Francis Burton
writes
In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:
You might be right, but when you have pleaded guilty, I can't see how
you can be FOUND guilty. You simply are. [...]

Except in those cases where you aren't. One can plead guilty to
a crime and be FOUND guilty even if one isn't.

In such circumstances, is it
likely that a magistrate, jury or judge would decide to find you NOT
guilty?

I'm not aware of any specific case where this has happened. I
imagine that, in most cases, the non-guilt of a person pleading
guilty would be determined before trial.

That was supposed to be a more-or-less rhetorical question! However, I
suppose there must have been the rare occasion when the judge liked the
colour of the defendant's eyes, and therefore had decided to find him
'not guilty', regardless.
--
Ian

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
... Harriet Harman pleads guilty to driving without due care and attention ...
}So you think she pleaded guilty because she was not guilty?

She almost certainly pleaded guilty out of expediency. It is a minor
offence, with little consequence whereas if she had been found not
guilty there would have been a huge outcry in the media about how
there's one law for ordinary people and another for those with power.

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , Brimstone
writes


"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message
,
webreader writes
Of look, she was found guilty, how many on this NG said otherwise.

See
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/...d-for-careless
-driving-115875-21951871/

If you plead guilty, are you FOUND guilty?
--
Yes, because there's no trial. The only decision is what punishment to
impose.

You might be right, but when you have pleaded guilty, I can't see how you
can be FOUND guilty. You simply are. In such circumstances, is it likely
that a magistrate, jury or judge would decide to find you NOT guilty?
--
Being "found guilty" having offered a guilty plea is, AFAIK, merely a
standard form of words.