Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ News / Press Articles _ Labour MP accused of PCOJ

Posted by: kommando Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 18:34
Post #1402383

And another one

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/25/jeremy-corbyn-ally-charged-perverting-course-justice/

A Labour whip and ally of Jeremy Corbyn has been charged with perverting the course of justice after allegations that she tried to give away speeding points a month after her election.

Fiona Onasanya, the Labour MP for Peterborough, appeared at Westminster magistrates court two weeks ago alongside her brother, Festus.

The former solicitor kept news of her arrest and charge secret while serving as a Labour whip. She is due back in court next month.

Solicitors and MP's seem to have issues with speeding tickets, this one is both !!!

Posted by: ViroBono Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 18:44
Post #1402387

From the Daily Mail, but also reported elsewhere:

QUOTE
Fiona Onasanya, 34, appeared at Westminster Magistrates Court on July 12
The Peterborough MP will appear at the Old Bailey for a hearing on August 13
The 34-year-old allegedly tried to avoid a speeding ticket on July 24 last year
Ms Onasanya is charged with two counts of perverting the course of justice
She is accused of lying to police after her brother was allegedly speeding


She's a Labour Whip, too, but failed to disclose the arrest and charge to the party.

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 19:27
Post #1402399

I almost responded as if this was the NAAFI...

Posted by: kommando Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 20:34
Post #1402416

Already added to ongoing jail for speeding thread.

Posted by: Fredd Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 21:22
Post #1402437

QUOTE (kommando @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 21:34) *
Already added to ongoing jail for speeding thread.

Yes, but let's bear in mind that this one is an allegation, not a report of a conviction.

Posted by: ViroBono Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 14:02
Post #1407613

The trial began today, and is likely to last 7 days. Both accused pleaded not guilty.


Posted by: Fredd Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 14:58
Post #1407638

QUOTE (ViroBono @ Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 15:02) *
The trial began today, and is likely to last 7 days. Both accused pleaded not guilty.

Just a plea at this stage, not the trial. The https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-45170272.

Posted by: StuartBu Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 15:34
Post #1407656

QUOTE (kommando @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 19:34) *
And another one

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/25/jeremy-corbyn-ally-charged-perverting-course-justice/

A Labour whip and ally of Jeremy

Quite why they had to mention Jeremy Corbyn is beyond me ( well it's not really) any excuse to drag his name in to things like this!

Posted by: Churchmouse Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 17:24
Post #1407700

QUOTE (StuartBu @ Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 16:34) *
QUOTE (kommando @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 19:34) *
And another one

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/25/jeremy-corbyn-ally-charged-perverting-course-justice/

A Labour whip and ally of Jeremy

Quite why they had to mention Jeremy Corbyn is beyond me ( well it's not really) any excuse to drag his name in to things like this!

Politicians are normally identified by party affiliation when they get caught doing something naughty, and someone in a high-profile role would probably have that role mentioned as well. I admit that the first thing I wanted to know when I heard that this had involved an MP was which party she belonged to...

--Churchmouse

Posted by: Ocelot Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 18:15
Post #1407724

QUOTE (StuartBu @ Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 16:34) *
QUOTE (kommando @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 19:34) *
And another one

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/25/jeremy-corbyn-ally-charged-perverting-course-justice/

A Labour whip and ally of Jeremy

Quite why they had to mention Jeremy Corbyn is beyond me ( well it's not really) any excuse to drag his name in to things like this!


The Torygraph and, in particular, the Mail, have an interest in dragging Jeremy Corbyn's name through the mud. The latter has at least 4 stories a day trying to implicate him with just about anything.

Posted by: ViroBono Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 19:02
Post #1407741

QUOTE (Ocelot @ Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 19:15) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 16:34) *
QUOTE (kommando @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 19:34) *
And another one

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/25/jeremy-corbyn-ally-charged-perverting-course-justice/

A Labour whip and ally of Jeremy

Quite why they had to mention Jeremy Corbyn is beyond me ( well it's not really) any excuse to drag his name in to things like this!


The Torygraph and, in particular, the Mail, have an interest in dragging Jeremy Corbyn's name through the mud. The latter has at least 4 stories a day trying to implicate him with just about anything.



On the other hand, earlier today the BBC News website had 6 mentions of Boris & the burka, and none about Corbyn laying a wreath at memorial to terrorists. Aside from political bias, it's all rather tedious; Boris makes a habit of silly gaffes, and Corbyn has made a career or being sympathetic to terrorists.


Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 20:02
Post #1407757

A man is known by the company he keeps.

Posted by: stamfordman Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 20:16
Post #1407764

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 21:02) *
A man is known by the company he keeps.



You mean like these two?


Posted by: notmeatloaf Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 21:15
Post #1408676

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 13 Aug 2018 - 21:02) *
A man is known by the company he keeps.

It might be stretching it a bit to say "keeping company". Some of Mrs NML's family are Israeli. Having spent quite a bit of time on the Middle East both sides are constantly trying to poke each other in the eye by proving a point to someone else. The Israeli government are just as fond at engineering gestures with foreign politicians.

When I was out there once on a night out in Jerusalem I met some nice chapswhi were very keen to make me wear some sort of cloak. Thinking it must be something innocuous I wore it and took some photos.

Next thing I know all hell breaks loose with Mrs NML family because apparently it is sure proof I am a terrorist sympathiser. They got bored when I laughed at them. But Israelis are just as keen to do their own "let's go see a settlement gosh isn't it lovely let's take some photis" mind games.

At a guess Corbyn is seen as more influential than me so will have this assault course daily, of course less now with more advisers.

I'd rather have a politician with conviction who stamps on toes even if occasionally they're the wrong ones. It's why I love the Italian government's response to the Genoa bridge collapse. On the basis of apparently no evidence they have said they will hunt down all the toll company execs past and presence, force them to pay €150m for a presumably luxurious new bridge, take away the contract anyway and it's all justified because they are quite legally based in Luxembourg.

If that was the M6 toll the company could have just taken delivery of a ton of dynamite ad some bridge drills and you'd still have Theresa May saying we simply must wait for the results of a seven year enquiry before making conclusions or starting work on repairs.

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 07:45
Post #1408733

He's come in for a lot of flak for his confusing account but I wonder if he was trying not to inflame the issue of alleged anti-semitism in the Labour Party

My understanding is that the memorial was to the 70+ people killed in Tunisia by Israel agents; Conservative and Liberal representatives as well as other international politicians were present and none of the Munich terrorists is buried in the cemetery




Posted by: ViroBono Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 12:22
Post #1408824

QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 08:45) *
He's come in for a lot of flak for his confusing account but I wonder if he was trying not to inflame the issue of alleged anti-semitism in the Labour Party

My understanding is that the memorial was to the 70+ people killed in Tunisia by Israel agents; Conservative and Liberal representatives as well as other international politicians were present and none of the Munich terrorists is buried in the cemetery


Corbyn might have got away with this excuse if it had been a one-off. But it isn't - he's been cosying up to terrorists and other unsavoury types for as long as he's been an MP. He claims that he does this to try to bring about peace by dialogue. Talking to only one side is not peacemaking; talking to only one side, taking that side and criticising the other side is not peacemaking. He appears to be too stupid to see that he is being manipulated. PIRA did it, the Czechs did it, and so, it seems, did the Palestinians. Anyone with any sense (of any party), would recognise that the hosts would be likely to exploit his attendance - there is no such thing as a free trip.

His non-verbal language when questioned on the issue shows that he's lying; and, of course, his story changed from the risible 'I was present but didn't take part' to admitting that he did lay a wreath, but claimed that it was not to terrorists. He's a narcissist who can never admit he's wrong or apologise.

As for not wanting to inflame the anti-Semitism issue, I'm sure that's right - he'd just like it all to go away so that he and his cabal of lickspittles can carry on with their bizarre Zionist conspiracy theories. Perhaps Shami 'Whitewash' Chakrabarti will be along to tell us that 'there's nothing to see here' shortly.

Posted by: stamfordman Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 14:47
Post #1408872

QUOTE (ViroBono @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 13:22) *
Corbyn might have got away with this excuse if it had been a one-off. But it isn't - he's been cosying up to terrorists and other unsavoury types for as long as he's been an MP. He claims that he does this to try to bring about peace by dialogue. Talking to only one side is not peacemaking; talking to only one side, taking that side and criticising the other side is not peacemaking.



All governments talk to proscribed organisations behind the scenes, and often encourage a symbiotic relationship (as Israel does with Hamas).

Leaders of those organisations often become statespeople feted by world leaders in life and death – Mandela, Arafat, Begin, McGuiness.

You make a false equivalence about 'both sides' when one is an oppressor. It's like giving equal time to climate change deniers. Standing up for what's right is Corbyn's track record.

As for "bizarre Zionist conspiracy" there's no need for conspiracy when Israel passes a nation state law that effectively establishes apartheid.


Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 14:55
Post #1408873

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 15:47) *
All governments talk to proscribed organisations

He’s not part of the government though.

Posted by: stamfordman Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 15:06
Post #1408877

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 15:55) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 15:47) *
All governments talk to proscribed organisations

He’s not part of the government though.


Indeed - not yet.

The point is hypocrisy - you can hardly complain about say someone talking to the IRA if Thatcher was doing it. So Corbyn went to meetings with Martin McGuiness - who ended up as a deputy first minister of Northern Ireland.

We need people championing causes and keeping them in the public eye.

The Israel boycott movement is a good example - if you want a laugh see this video of the 'Sussex Friends of Israel' founder in Brighton:

https://youtu.be/_irmCd_nI9A


Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 15:12
Post #1408879

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 15:47) *
......….As for "bizarre Zionist conspiracy" there's no need for conspiracy when Israel passes a nation state law that effectively establishes apartheid.


While I dislike many of the things Israel does, if they were to remove their forces and hang up their weapons, beat the swords into ploughshares, they would cease to exist within a very short space of time.
Exactly the same as in 1948 when the British pulled out and handed the keys to the Palestinians.
It does explain their policies a little, they know they exist solely for as long as they can defend themselves.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 15:31
Post #1408883

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 16:06) *
The point is hypocrisy - you can hardly complain about say someone talking to the IRA if Thatcher was doing it.

Is there not a difference between the British Government talking to a terrorist organisation in furtherance of government policy and an individual MP doing so unofficially and then, apparently, acting in sympathy with the aims of or in support of that terrorist organisation? Is it merely talking to them that matters or does the intention behind the talks have a bearing?

Posted by: stamfordman Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 15:44
Post #1408888

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 16:31) *
Is there not a difference between the British Government talking to a terrorist organisation in furtherance of government policy and an individual MP doing so unofficially and then, apparently, acting in sympathy with the aims of or in support of that terrorist organisation? Is it merely talking to them that matters or does the intention behind the talks have a bearing?


You can support the aims but not the means. This article is just up on the Guardian - it portrays Corbyn as anti-violence to a fault - he has to deny he is a total pacifist. The aims of a united Ireland and an end to discrimination against a minority in the north were good ones in my view and still are.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/17/jeremy-corbyn-foreign-causes-a-blessing-or-a-curse

How would characterise say Helen Suzman in South Africa, a politician who talked to the ANC leadership, including Mandela when he was imprisoned?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Suzman

As for "the British Government talking to a terrorist organisation in furtherance of government policy" - it wasn't public policy to talk to the IRA.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 15:46
Post #1408889

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 16:44) *
As for "the British Government talking to a terrorist organisation in furtherance of government policy" - it wasn't public policy to talk to the IRA.

Was it not? If it’s being done by the PM then the presumption would be that it was indeed government policy, openly admitted or not.

Posted by: stamfordman Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 15:52
Post #1408891

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 16:12) *
While I dislike many of the things Israel does, if they were to remove their forces and hang up their weapons, beat the swords into ploughshares, they would cease to exist within a very short space of time.
Exactly the same as in 1948 when the British pulled out and handed the keys to the Palestinians.
It does explain their policies a little, they know they exist solely for as long as they can defend themselves.



That's an old view not borne out by reality. Of its four neighbours, Israel has treaties with Egypt and Jordan; Syria is trashed; and Lebanon is hardly a threat.

It may be a long way off, but the future clearly lies in Israel/Palestine being a single secular state, as the great teenager Ahed Tamimi has said:

https://youtu.be/gwqpKU0odyQ

She hopefully is the future.

What has to abandoned is a state founded on apartheid and which occupies and cages people.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 15:54
Post #1408894

Anyway, the topic is a Labour MP accused of PCOJ, not politics, so let’s get back on topic.

Posted by: stamfordman Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 18:34
Post #1408942

So, the trial isn't until November.

Why is this at Old Bailey? I thought OB was for major and exceptional cases.

Posted by: Fredd Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 17:04
Post #1431352

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46097181. Pleading guilty to three PCOJ offences doesn't seem likely to work out well when he's sentenced, even with the discount.

His sister is still pleading not guilty, though, with her trial going ahead next week.

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 18:26
Post #1431388

Will make for an intersteing trial if he’s asked to give evidence!

Posted by: Ocelot Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 19:33
Post #1433846

The latest:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46200100


A Labour MP plotted with her brother to evade a speeding prosecution, a court has heard.

Fiona Onasanya claimed a Russian man was behind the wheel when her Nissan Micra was clocked doing 41mph in a 30mph zone in July last year, jurors at the Old Bailey were told.

Ms Onasanya, 35, denies one count of perverting the course of justice.

Prosecutor David Jeremy QC said the MP and her brother Festus Onasanya had "acted jointly in telling lies".

The court was told Ms Onasanya, who is the MP for Peterborough, was sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) after her car was clocked by a speed camera in Thorney, near Peterborough, on 24 July last year.

She returned the paperwork naming Aleks Antipow as the driver, jurors heard.

Mr Jeremy said Mr Antipow was the previous tenant of a property that Ms Onasanya and her brother had rented in Cambridge.

The court heard that Mr Antipow was at home in Russia at the time of the incident and had never driven the MP's car.

Mr Jeremy said that providing a real name but false address and telephone number meant Mr Antipow "would remain untraceable", so that "the true driver of Miss Onasanya's car would escape prosecution".



She's a solicitor too, so a risky strategy if she is guilty, especially as a SAC is likely to have been offered.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 09:33
Post #1433962

I suspect the Brother, having plead guilty, is going to be falling on his sword and taking all the blame so as to exonerate his sister, whether that's the true version or not the evidence may or may not show. It appears the NIP/S172 was in her own name so he will have to have claim to have 'intercepted' it and filled it and returned it all without her knowledge as I see it. It may come down to a forensic analysis of the returned form for prints/handwriting/signature.

Posted by: Rallyman72 Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 09:49
Post #1433967

I think it is interesting to see that the police used mobile phone connections to confirm that both of her mobile phones were in the vicinity of the speed camera concerned at the time of the offence. They really seem to be working hard in getting background detail where it is available.

Still innocent until proved guilty but it doesn't seem to bode well following the prosecution presentation. I think the defence will be fascinating to follow. And I have a feeling that the Rookie is right about the potential line of defence.

Posted by: ViroBono Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 14:27
Post #1434036

QUOTE (Rallyman72 @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 09:49) *
I think it is interesting to see that the police used mobile phone connections to confirm that both of her mobile phones were in the vicinity of the speed camera concerned at the time of the offence. They really seem to be working hard in getting background detail where it is available.

Still innocent until proved guilty but it doesn't seem to bode well following the prosecution presentation. I think the defence will be fascinating to follow. And I have a feeling that the Rookie is right about the potential line of defence.



No doubt a career as Ms Onasanya's Chief of Staff awaits the brother.

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 14:50
Post #1434040

IIRC, as he’s no longer a co-defendant he’s now a competent and compellable witness in her trial.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 15:18
Post #1434052

QUOTE (ViroBono @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 14:27) *
No doubt a career as Ms Onasanya's Chief of Staff awaits the brother.

Not that daily Fail news article again, a quick google will tell you he was sacked ten days BEFORE the Fail printed the news story.

Posted by: ViroBono Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 15:58
Post #1434063

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 15:18) *
QUOTE (ViroBono @ Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 14:27) *
No doubt a career as Ms Onasanya's Chief of Staff awaits the brother.

Not that daily Fail news article again, a quick google will tell you he was sacked ten days BEFORE the Fail printed the news story.


Ishmael Osamor resigned (under pressure) as a Haringey councillor, but was (according to the Independent & Guardian, amongst other sources), still his mother's COS as at 06 November, and the complaint about his appointment bringing Parliament into disrepute remains extant.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 16:15
Post #1434069

The article I read (will dig in a minute) said he resigned the post on 31/10.

Posted by: ViroBono Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 11:51
Post #1434622

A former member of Fiona Onasanya’s staff has given evidence against her. Christian DeFeo, former Head of Communications told the court that Onasanya turned up at his home, located on the road on which she was caught speeding, on the day she was caught, alone in her car.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 12:11
Post #1434629

Hardly evidence against her really, that in now way proves any element of PCOJ, all it establishes is that she was driving that day, as it’s already clear the named driver wasn’t driving (the brothers guilty plea) I can’t see it being of much use, but of course we don’t know what her defence is although the only one I can see working is the brother claiming he intercepted the NIP and sent it back and Ms Onasanya had no knowledge of it at all. Similar to the old Yorke defence.

Posted by: Rallyman72 Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 13:36
Post #1434662

Sorry, I do not see where it has been shown she was not driving that day. The brother was involved in supplying the alleged driver details it would seem.

From the Peterborough Telegraph:

QUOTE
The former aide of Peterborough MP Fiona Onasanya, who is accused of plotting with her brother to avoid a speeding ticket, said he felt “morally and legally” obliged to give evidence against her, a court has heard.

Dr Christian DeFeo, who managed campaigns and communications for Miss Onasanya, said he was compelled to contact police after spotting a news report of her trial at the Old Bailey.

Dr DeFeo said he discussed with his wife Caroline Earle whether or not to give evidence against the 35-year-old, but decided he had a moral duty to contact police on Tuesday this week, the day Onasanya’s trial began.

He told the court he had “enormous hopes invested” in the Labour MP, who was elected in 2017, and added: “I never dreamed in my darkest dreams - I never thought I would have to be sitting here (giving evidence).

“It is with the greatest reluctance I have to do this. To do otherwise, I cannot. It’s morally and legally unacceptable not to.”

The court heard there had been a “bit of a falling out” between the MP and Ms Earle after an event marking 100 years of Labour in Peterborough was cancelled by Onasanya.

Asked by prosecutor David Jeremy QC whether he “had it in” for Onasanya as a result of the dispute, Dr DeFeo said he did not, and added: “From day one I wanted her to succeed. I wanted her to be a great MP and I said on a number of occasions that I wanted her to be an MP as long as she wanted to be. It’s a terrible thing to have to do this.”

Onasanya is accused of plotting with her brother Festus Onasanya to claim that a Russian man was behind the wheel of her Nissan Micra when it was clocked doing 41mph in a 30mph zone on The Causeway near Thorney in Cambridgeshire.

The incident happened near where Dr DeFeo lived at the time, on July 24 2017, a week after Onasanya was elected MP.

The court was told about an email exchange between Onasanya and Dr DeFeo, arranging to meet on July 24 last year.Asked what time she was there, the witness said: “I cannot say a specific time, however she arrived late and was there quite late because we offered her a bed to stay the night. She arrived in her car. She arrived alone. She pulled up her car in front of our house. I greeted her at the door.”

Dr DeFeo said Onasanya, his wife and himself spent no less than two hours discussing the “nitty gritty” of a charity lease in his living room. They were there together throughout apart from the occasional “loo breaks” and his wife going into the kitchen to prepare a “hot lemon squash”.

Dr DeFeo said Onasanya had been to his home three or four times, including when he threw a “victory party” to celebrate her election, accompanied by her mother.


It does seem to tie her down to driving that evening. If the brother intercepted the NIP then how can this be explained:
QUOTE
On being asked to provide correct contacts, the defendant replied: “I have supplied the details made known to me as well as the licence information...I have provided a completed nomination previously.”


And then:
QUOTE
Mark Williams, an investigator from the Cambridgeshire Camera Ticket unit, repeatedly tried to contact Ms Onasanya. On November 2, she allegedly told him that she “stands by her nomination”.


Admittedly it does not say whether this was in writing or in person and it has to be borne in mind that we are hearing the prosecution side.

Posted by: peterguk Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 13:38
Post #1434665

That's torn it...

New witness comes forward:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6397457/Former-aide-says-Labour-MPs-drove-house-claims-Russian-speeding-car.html

A Labour MP who claims an 'untraceable' Russian man sped in her Nissan Micra had driven alone to a house on the street where the car was caught doing 41mph in a 30mph zone, a court heard today.

Dr Christian DeFeo, who wrote press releases for Peterborough MP Fiona Onasanya, said he felt 'compelled' to appear at the Old Bailey at the 11th hour after reading a court report online this week.

Dr DeFeo told jurors he had a moral duty to contact police and told them the MP had driven to his house, alone, in her Nissan Micra, on the night the speeding ticket was issued.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 14:17
Post #1434672

All above, nothing torn at all Peter.....

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 15:25
Post #1434688

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 16 Nov 2018 - 14:17) *
All above, nothing torn at all Peter.....

If his evidence was of no relevance he wouldn’t have been called.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 14:28
Post #1436262

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/fiona-onasanya-speeding-ticket-trial_uk_5bf58204e4b03b230f9dbd41?utm_hp_ref=uk-news

So that clears up the defence strategy (which was kind of predictable once the brother plead guilty), can't see that ending well.......

Posted by: Rallyman72 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 16:46
Post #1436311

Jury (of 11, one discharged earlier in the week due to ill health) retired at 10:58 to consider their verdict. Will now return tomorrow to continue their deliberations. They were directed thast their verdict had to be unanimous.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 11:07
Post #1436464

So now she's claiming she didn't fill in the NiP at all? The reports of the prosecution evidence suggest it was returned (so presumably signed) by her so one wonders why the identity of the person who returned the NiP hasn't been brought up before.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 11:43
Post #1436477

Maybe it 'appeared to be signed by her', her defence seems to rest on admitting the S172 offence "left the NIP at her mother's house in Cambridge for whoever had borrowed her Nissan Micra to fill in." as "she had assumed she was in Westminster at the time of the speeding offence" even though we know that likely isn't the case and it appears to be that she was driving.

Posted by: Fredd Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 12:29
Post #1436494

I'm a little surprised it's taking the jury so long to reach a verdict, given that it basically comes down to whether they think her story is credible or not.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 13:26
Post #1436517

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 11:43) *
Maybe it 'appeared to be signed by her', her defence seems to rest on admitting the S172 offence "left the NIP at her mother's house in Cambridge for whoever had borrowed her Nissan Micra to fill in." as "she had assumed she was in Westminster at the time of the speeding offence" even though we know that likely isn't the case and it appears to be that she was driving.

Once would have thought it wouldn't be that hard to forensically analyse the signature.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 14:18
Post #1436533

Judge is currently asking for a unanimous verdict, may be just one hold out, I predict a guilty from what we’ve been able to see of the case (noting it’s not all).

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 16:27
Post #1436577

I'm predicting a Not Guilty

Her version sounds unlikely but, as we've seen so many examples of incompetent S172 responses, it's not impossible

Silly question - is it legal to comment on a case before the jury decides ?

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 20:54
Post #1436641

QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 16:27) *
I'm predicting a Not Guilty

Her version sounds unlikely but, as we've seen so many examples of incompetent S172 responses, it's not impossible
……...


Even if found not guilty, she has basically admitted treating a legal notice with contempt, not being bothered to follow legal requirements, either being so disorganised that she hasn't a clue what day is which or at best, not checking her diary.
And trusting her brother, whom her own defense slates.... and this is a trusted MP in a responsible position ?
If she were mine I would not be voting for her next time round.

Posted by: The Rookie Sun, 25 Nov 2018 - 06:32
Post #1436854


Ate on Friday the judge dropped it to a majority verdict.......

Posted by: jdh Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 13:37
Post #1437220

Jury failed to reach a verdict, Retrial to start 11 Dec. Sentencing of her brother delayed to match.

Posted by: Ocelot Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 15:21
Post #1437293

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46316184

Posted by: jdh Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 18:13
Post #1437386

Looks like she’s double booked for Dec 11th now, can she send a Russian chap to do the Commons vote for her instead?

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 26 Nov 2018 - 18:25
Post #1437389

If the CPS are willing to go to retrial it’s probably not good news as it gives them the chance to better present a case that rebuts her defence while her defence as I see it will have stay pretty much unchanged.

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 14:40
Post #1437929

Agree

They now know to investigate whose handwriting is on the form

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:02
Post #1437958

I'd have expected that to be covered anyway......

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 18:49
Post #1438036

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:02) *
I'd have expected that to be covered anyway......

Still, they can pre-emptively deal with her defence points.

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 00:16
Post #1438137

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 16:02) *
I'd have expected that to be covered anyway......



Doubt it unless they had some pre-warning of the defence.
Cannot see why they would go to expense of a handwriting expert unless they had some reason to ?

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 29 Nov 2018 - 08:57
Post #1438157

I would have imagined that she would have laid out her defence (' left it on the table') was in her interview replies and/or statements before hand, so if she signed it that would be strong evidence so I would have expected the Police to have had that analysis carried out, maybe they didn't. I even suggested it should have been done BEFORE they got into the defence, see #30.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 09:55
Post #1442366

A bit more detail in this one than the others, the fact she was asked again to consider her nomination and appears to have replied would seem pretty damning if that was written by her. Then a phone conversation with her when she repeated that, in my mind that trashes her claim to have left the NIP for someone else to complete. I can't quite see how the previous Jury couldn't reach the inevitable verdict.
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/peterborough-mp-fiona-onasanya-lied-persistently-and-deliberately-court-told-1-8737332

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 11:15
Post #1442381

That's a bit different from

I left the form on the table and my brother must have filled it in

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 11:42
Post #1442390

Indeed, that looked like a case of stupidity rather than Malice, with that extra detail its slam dunk guilty IMO. Accepting its not impossible the brother filled the response to the NIP and 'Reminder' but its hard to see the phone call was with anyone but her.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 12:58
Post #1442436

Maybe she'll say it was a friend / relative who impersonated her on the phone rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 13:17
Post #1442446

I'm reading from the account that the police tried very hard to offer her a last chance to reconsider her nomination and she stubbornly refused to take it

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 14:31
Post #1442457

QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 13:17) *
I'm reading from the account that the police tried very hard to offer her a last chance to reconsider her nomination and she stubbornly refused to take it

More then one chance by the sound of it.

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 11:51
Post #1442694

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/peterborough-mp-fiona-onasanya-s-former-campaign-manager-tells-court-he-had-no-choice-but-to-turn-her-in-1-8740764
Looking worse for her IMO

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 19:21
Post #1442809

The interesting question at this point is, if she's convicted, will she get a suspended sentence or go straight to prison without passing go?

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:41
Post #1442831

I’d suggest her crimes are worse than Chris Huhne, so I’d guess at straight to jail without passing go.

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 09:54
Post #1442920

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 20:41) *
I’d suggest her crimes are worse than Chris Huhne, so I’d guess at straight to jail without passing go.


I agree that should be straight to jail if found guilty (though I cannot see how it could be otherwise at the moment).
I agree on the worse, he blamed wife with her agreement, this one tried (allegedly) to put an innocent into the frame.
To me the common ground on both is that they are supposed to be figures of authority who act according to the law, not lie through their teeth when caught.

He had the "decency" to resign from his cabinet post when charged and as an MP when he changed his plea to guilty.
I wonder if she will do the same? I don't believe she has even resigned her position as Whip at the moment.


Posted by: Fredd Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 10:23
Post #1442929

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 09:54) *
He had the "decency" to resign from his cabinet post when charged and as an MP when he changed his plea to guilty.
I wonder if she will do the same? I don't believe she has even resigned her position as Whip at the moment.

I imagine the SRA would take a close interest in the event of a guilty verdict as well, so she might not have a career as a solicitor to fall back on if she did get booted out of politics as a result.

Posted by: Churchmouse Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 11:43
Post #1442935

QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 10:23) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 09:54) *
He had the "decency" to resign from his cabinet post when charged and as an MP when he changed his plea to guilty.
I wonder if she will do the same? I don't believe she has even resigned her position as Whip at the moment.

I imagine the SRA would take a close interest in the event of a guilty verdict as well, so she might not have a career as a solicitor to fall back on if she did get booted out of politics as a result.

There is no "might" about this. Solicitors ore routinely struck off for criminal convictions that don't involve dishonesty, unlike this type of case.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 12:56
Post #1442947

QUOTE (Fredd @ Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 10:23) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 09:54) *
He had the "decency" to resign from his cabinet post when charged and as an MP when he changed his plea to guilty.
I wonder if she will do the same? I don't believe she has even resigned her position as Whip at the moment.

I imagine the SRA would take a close interest in the event of a guilty verdict as well, so she might not have a career as a solicitor to fall back on if she did get booted out of politics as a result.

I would be flabbergasted if she wasn’t struck off if convicted in those circumstances.

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 21:51
Post #1443028

Considering she could also lose her seat under the Recall of MPs Act 2015 (if she is convicted of course), it really doesn't seem worth it for the sake of a £100 penalty.

Posted by: Fredd Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 17:50
Post #1443307

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/peterborough-mp-fiona-onasanya-tells-court-she-was-betrayed-by-her-brother-1-8743023.

In the nick of time her brother now seems to have remembered driving the car that evening, on that exact same road. Less conveniently, perhaps, that still doesn't seem to fit with the recollection of the people she visited, or presumably the mobile phone location evidence:

QUOTE
Giving evidence, Ms Onasanya told jurors that since her first trial last month her sibling told her he was behind the wheel on the evening of 24 July last year.

The politician claimed she visited the DeFeos in the afternoon and said that Festus admitted to her that he took her car out later that evening and coincidentally happened to drive it along the very same road.

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 17:54
Post #1443311

It was her brother driving and he filled in the form !!!!!!
Like 'ell it was.
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/peterborough-mp-fiona-onasanya-tells-court-she-was-betrayed-by-her-brother-1-8743023
Better then TV this smile.gif

Posted by: samthecat Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 20:31
Post #1443341

When you absolutely must keep digging.......

Has her brother made it to court yet to confess? I can see he has pleaded guilty to some offences of his own but he must now be the star witness (apart from the fact he is a proven liar).

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 20:42
Post #1443348

The funny thing is that as a solicitor, she would be well aware that giving a different version of events every time you are asked does not help when it comes to credibility...

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 20:45
Post #1443350

Don't you just love it when accounts of the same event are different..... I wonder who the jury will believe, The Campaign Manager who realised that it was his public duty to come forward or the Politician who seems unable to tell the same story twice ?
Dr Defoe from the witness box on Friday

QUOTE
Asked what time she arrived on 24 July, he (Dr Defeo) said: ‘I don’t know specifically. However, she stayed with us until quite late.’
He told jurors the meeting lasted for ‘hours’ that evening, adding that by the end of it: ‘She said she was tired and we offered her a place to stay.’

QUOTE
The politician claimed she visited the DeFeos in the afternoon and said that Festus admitted to her that he took her car out later that evening and coincidentally happened to drive it along the very same road.


Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 20:49
Post #1443352

Afternoon?

QUOTE
The couple remembered the MP visited them at their home on The Causeway in Thorney, on the evening she is said to have committed the speeding offence.


About as truthful as the Chump it seems.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 10:41
Post #1443906

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46596588

Now she was a passenger..... (not that its relevant to the charge AT ALL) as she wouldn't use her mobile phone whilst driving (Did anyone say it was being used rather than just tracked and using scheduled app access?)....of course someone who could pervert the course of justice would never use a phone while driving.

The Defence seem to be using a 'sticky mud' strategy here, a sure sign to me that she is actually as guilty as sin and its all they have left to rely on.

I think with the additional lies an 18 month sentence wouldn't be unjustified.

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 10:52
Post #1443911

"I put it to you that you were driving"
"No, I wasn't"
"Yes you were"
"Oh no I wasn't"
…..

Well it is the panto season smile.gif

The other day her brother "confessed" to using her car in the evening (when she was supposedly with campaign manager)
Now her brother was driving her, despite her supposedly being alone at campaign managers.
To hell with varying stories from witnesses, how many different tales of the same event is she going to tell ?

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 11:17
Post #1443925

I just wonder if she'll blame the little green men next rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 11:23
Post #1443930

Even somebody with her appalling memory would know if she was being driven by her brother or a Russian visitor

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 11:48
Post #1443942

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 10:52) *
Now her brother was driving her, despite her supposedly being alone at campaign managers.

You missed the bit where she claimed the meeting was in the afternoon.

Waters being muddied.......

As I see the defence strategy now, its just to try and create doubt by throwing around lots of possibles in the hope they confuse the jury into a not guilty verdict. No-one vaguely intelligent (and she's clearly not thick) can spin that many if's but's and maybe's without it being deliberate, and if it's deliberate it screams guilty to me.

End of career as a solicitor
End of career as a whip
Quite probably the end of her career as an MP (even if she holds on to the next election I can't see a constituency party selecting her).
No wonder she's fighting it all the way with that much to lose, the increased punishment for fighting it is minor by comparison.
I wonder if she'll still claim to be a Christian after all this.

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 11:54
Post #1443946

Let's hope the prosecutor and judge's summings-up draw attention to the changing and implausible accounts

Posted by: Fredd Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 13:32
Post #1443970

Apparently https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/jury-in-trial-of-peterborough-mp-fiona-onasanya-continue-deliberations-1-8745194, and are still at it.

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 13:39
Post #1443974

That's not good

Suggests that somebody thinks "beyond reasonable doubt" means no other possible explanation not logical explanation

Posted by: Rallyman72 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 14:26
Post #1443985

Curious - the speed camera photo shows her car going INTO Thorney from the Peterborough direction.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 14:42
Post #1443994

Not seen the photo, do you have a link?

Posted by: Fredd Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 15:34
Post #1444012

Result's in - https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/peterborough-labour-mp-fiona-onasanya-found-guilty-of-perverting-the-course-of-justice-1-8745527, by a unanimous verdict.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 15:36
Post #1444014

As DeFoe said, 'got her'.

I'm not happy she committed the crime, but having been convinced she did I'm happy justice has been served, Christian my arse!

Posted by: freddy1 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 15:58
Post #1444024

"A Labour Party spokesman said she had been "administratively suspended" and called for her to resign.

He added: "The Labour Party is deeply disappointed in Fiona Onasanya's behaviour. It falls well below what is expected of politicians. She should now resign."

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 16:44
Post #1444043

Any predictions for the sentence?
I'll go for two years.

Posted by: Rallyman72 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 16:45
Post #1444044

Verdict is what was expected by many, and is IMHO correct. She has done nothing for the city according to friends who live in the constituency.

link to picture as requested, originally published in the Guardian:

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/28e2a37bef8fe73b5ea7f8a24214c329e9673fbe/0_0_5753_3453/master/5753.jpg?width=1920&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max

Posted by: BaggieBoy Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 16:49
Post #1444046

QUOTE (Rallyman72 @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 16:45) *
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/28e2a37bef8fe73b5ea7f8a24214c329e9673fbe/0_0_5753_3453/master/5753.jpg?width=1920&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max

Gives me:

Error 401 Unauthorized - missing signature

Posted by: Dwain Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 16:53
Post #1444048

How long until Diane Abbott claims she was only found guilty because she's black? smile.gif

As I am over 50, I am getting less and less certain how to refer to people of a different colour, pardon me if Black is wrong.

Posted by: Fredd Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 16:53
Post #1444049

QUOTE (Rallyman72 @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 16:45) *
link to picture as requested, originally published in the Guardian:

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/28e2a37bef8fe73b5ea7f8a24214c329e9673fbe/0_0_5753_3453/master/5753.jpg?width=1920&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max

https://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,q_auto:low,c_fill/if_h_lte_200,c_mfit,h_201/https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/webimage/1.8745688.1545235444!/image/image.jpg?

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 17:21
Post #1444061

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 16:44) *
Any predictions for the sentence?
I'll go for two years.

Just a wild guess, 18 months.

Posted by: Churchmouse Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 17:22
Post #1444062

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 11:48) *
I wonder if she'll still claim to be a Christian after all this.

Seems a bit of a low blow, that. Did she actually claim that Christians always tell the truth? (Despite my purported place of abode, I am not a Christian.)

--Churchmouse

Posted by: Rallyman72 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 17:29
Post #1444069

QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 16:53) *
QUOTE (Rallyman72 @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 16:45) *
link to picture as requested, originally published in the Guardian:

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/28e2a37bef8fe73b5ea7f8a24214c329e9673fbe/0_0_5753_3453/master/5753.jpg?width=1920&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max

https://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,q_auto:low,c_fill/if_h_lte_200,c_mfit,h_201/https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/webimage/1.8745688.1545235444!/image/image.jpg?

Thank you for fixing that.

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 17:59
Post #1444086

QUOTE (Dwain @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 16:53) *
How long until Diane Abbott claims she was only found guilty because she's black? smile.gif………..


And Harriet Harman states it's cos she's female rolleyes.gif


QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 17:22) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 11:48) *
I wonder if she'll still claim to be a Christian after all this.

Seems a bit of a low blow, that. Did she actually claim that Christians always tell the truth? (Despite my purported place of abode, I am not a Christian.)

--Churchmouse



Not that low, just another example of how the standards expected from someone who professes to be driven heavily by her faith, a solicitor, an MP and a Party Whip have no been upheld by her.

Posted by: Steve_999 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 18:06
Post #1444092

And, despite the Labour Party spokesman's quote, unfortunately the behaviour is perhaps no longer well below that expected of a politician these days?

Posted by: Redivi Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 18:36
Post #1444103

Her leader isn't above denying an allegation and concocting an unlikely explanation in the face of all evidence
Ironic because most of the MPs probably thought that what he said was true

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/corbyn-denies-calling-pm-stupid-woman-in-pmqs-clash/ar-BBRaXNv?ocid=spartandhp

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 19:11
Post #1444115

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 17:22) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 11:48) *
I wonder if she'll still claim to be a Christian after all this.

Seems a bit of a low blow, that. Did she actually claim that Christians always tell the truth?

Christians are meant to tell the truth and have a working moral compass, I’d suggest her actions have shown neither, therefor I think her claims to be a Christian are disingenuous.

Posted by: Fredd Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 19:16
Post #1444116

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 17:21) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 16:44) *
Any predictions for the sentence?
I'll go for two years.

Just a wild guess, 18 months.

The starting point seems to be 4 months, Chris Huhne got 8 months, so maybe a bit longer than that since she's a solicitor who really should know better?

Not surprisingly she's getting probably the most extensive https://twitter.com/peterboroughtel/status/1075465448525828097 of her career. I think the "Happy Christmas to all our readers" just above her picture is a tad optimistic, though. smile.gif

Posted by: Ocelot Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 19:43
Post #1444123

I'll go in the middle and suggest 6 months (out after 1-2).

Anything over one year and she'll have to step down.

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 19:49
Post #1444125

I can’t work out how someone elected in mid-2017 is already a whip.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 19:52
Post #1444127

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 19:49) *
I can’t work out how someone elected in mid-2017 is already a whip.


momentum

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 20:12
Post #1444135

Black and female, two ticks, plus of course he doesn’t have many he can actually trust to follow is whip.

Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 20:15
Post #1444136

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 20:12) *
Black and female, two ticks,


Ticks in what?

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 20:26
Post #1444142

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 19:52) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 19:49) *
I can’t work out how someone elected in mid-2017 is already a whip.


momentum

That was my first thought.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 21:16
Post #1444172

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 20:15) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 20:12) *
Black and female, two ticks,


Ticks in what?

In the boxes for representations by ‘minorities’.

Posted by: elscint Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 22:41
Post #1444199

Sentence will be at least 12 months, or should be, Chris Heune pleaded guilty and got 8 months, she was denying it all along so sentence will be stiffer.


Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 00:13
Post #1444228

QUOTE (elscint @ Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 22:41) *
Sentence will be at least 12 months, or should be, Chris Heune pleaded guilty and got 8 months, she was denying it all along so sentence will be stiffer.

And let's not forget the constantly changing lies to try and shift responsibility to someone (anyone) else.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 07:10
Post #1444242

Agreed, Huhne only stuck to his original lie and then caved in at trial, she not only repeated the original lie twice more when offered a way out but then tried to create a web of lies and half truths in order to try and save her ass while her brother fell on his sword for it (admittedly he’d done it twice already of his own volition so I’ve no doubt he was involved at some level in her case).

Posted by: Peter Hardy Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 07:39
Post #1444243

Good luck finding it on the BBC website this morning...

Posted by: I am Weasel Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 07:42
Post #1444244

QUOTE (Peter Hardy @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 07:39) *
Good luck finding it on the BBC website this morning...

BBC News - Fiona Onasanya: Peterborough MP guilty in speeding case
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46602635

Took me 10 seconds

Posted by: Peter Hardy Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 07:54
Post #1444245

My point was that it's not on the homepage nor on the news page. I would of thought that this was an important story worthy of greater visibility but hey ho.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 08:28
Post #1444248

Compared to Brexit I'd say it's not, it was also yesterdays news so will be displaced by newer articles. Lets face it in the grand scheme of things its not really that important!

Posted by: ManxRed Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 09:04
Post #1444268

QUOTE (Peter Hardy @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 07:54) *
My point was that it's not on the homepage nor on the news page. I would of thought that this was an important story worthy of greater visibility but hey ho.


It was yesterday.

Posted by: Fredd Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 11:47
Post #1444323

And for all those who think that there's no such thing as enough "news" about Brexit ATM, https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/could-mps-conviction-shift-balance-in-commons-and-even-influence-brexit-1-5825675. BangHead.gif

Posted by: jdh Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 11:55
Post #1444325

Recently ex of UKIP MEP Paul Flynn has his offices in Peterborough, he could be one to benefit from this mess if a by election is triggered.

Posted by: Redivi Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 13:21
Post #1444357

QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 11:47) *
And for all those who think that there's no such thing as enough "news" about Brexit ATM, https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/could-mps-conviction-shift-balance-in-commons-and-even-influence-brexit-1-5825675. BangHead.gif

My first thought when she was suspended was that it's the last thing Corbyn needs in the event of a No-confidence vote on the Government

Posted by: ViroBono Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 19:51
Post #1444466

It seems that Onasanya is not going to go quietly. . .

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/peterborough-mp-fiona-onasanya-hints-she-will-not-quit-as-mp-in-whatsapp-message-to-labour-mps-1-8746824

She appears to have no insight into her wrongful behaviour, thinks she's the injured party, and won't apologise. Delusions of grandeur, or just emulating her leader, Agent Cob?

Posted by: cp8759 Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 20:17
Post #1444471

She's definitely delusional.

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 20:20
Post #1444475

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 20:17) *
She's definitely delusional.


Bible rants? Fruitcake material.

Posted by: ViroBono Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 20:34
Post #1444476

Now she's trotting out the standard Momentum drivel: the conviction was 'due to widespread media coverage'; presumably her lies played no part.

I wonder if the religious lunacy is part of a plan to make a plea for her not to be jailed because of her mental health.


Posted by: Fredd Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 20:37
Post #1444477

QUOTE (ViroBono @ Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 19:51) *
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/peterborough-mp-fiona-onasanya-hints-she-will-not-quit-as-mp-in-whatsapp-message-to-labour-mps-1-8746824

To stretch a point, one of her biblical comparisons is quite apposite in that Daniel managed to avoid punishment for failing to bow down to the law (Nebuchadnezzar’s statue in his case) while his friends Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown under a fiery proverbial bus. Perhaps that's where she found the inspiration for her particular fairy tale?

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 20 Dec 2018 - 21:39
Post #1444493

My biblical knowledge is rusty but what crimes were Joseph or Moses found guilty of ?

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 08:47
Post #1444563

Moses killed an Egyptian who he came across beating a Hebrew, as the Egyptians were dominant Moses would have been found guilty of murder and executed (regardless of the rights or wrongs) and so fled, I'm not sure he was ever tried though as he fled first I thought.

Joseph I guess was found 'guilty' by his brothers of being the favourite son?

There is a Christmas table somewhere missing its fruitcake.

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 09:17
Post #1444572

Moses was, at the time, believed to be a royal prince
The investigation, however, would have revealed his true origin

Joseph was imprisoned in Egypt following a false accusation of sexual assault
He was subsequently appointed to a position second only to Pharoah

I somehow don't think Ms Onasanya will enjoy such a revival
If Mrs May has a dream about seven scrawny cattle emerging from the Channel it will end with them devouring each other
The fat cattle representing seven years of plenty, that they should have eaten, missed their promised appearance





Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 09:53
Post #1444590

Ah, that Joseph blush.gif
My thoughts were towards Joseph as in Jesus, Mary and Joseph (must be the time of year).
Who as far as I know was only "guilty" of sticking by his virgin but pregnant girlfriend and then bringing up a child not his.


Moses was not found guilty of the killing of the Egyptian overseer.
He did a runner to avoid trial.
Which may have been Ms O's best option if she had thoughts of emulating biblical characters smile.gif

Posted by: ViroBono Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 10:03
Post #1444594

If Onasanya is so keen on comparing herself to characters from a book, perhaps the learned Judge will look, when sentencing, to the case of R v Toad (1908), in which the culprit was sentenced to 3 years for furious driving, and 15 years for cheek.

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 10:40
Post #1444610

Nice one

Posted by: jdh Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 11:16
Post #1444627

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 09:53) *
Ah, that Joseph blush.gif
My thoughts were towards Joseph as in Jesus, Mary and Joseph (must be the time of year).
Who as far as I know was only "guilty" of sticking by his virgin but pregnant girlfriend and then bringing up a child not his.

Sounds like benefits fraud to me. I bet he claimed a night’s accommodation too and didn’t declare the gifts on the members register.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 12:00
Post #1444651

Loving the Spectators headline
"She's not the messiah shes a very naughty girl"

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/fiona-onasanyas-not-the-messiah-shes-a-very-naughty-girl/

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 13:07
Post #1444679

Mr S must have missed that section of the Old Testament where Moses was caught speeding down the M25…

Probably near Junction 9
The roar of Moses' Triumph is heard in the hills

Posted by: Monster 900 Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 17:31
Post #1444750

QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 13:07) *
Mr S must have missed that section of the Old Testament where Moses was caught speeding down the M25…

Probably near Junction 9
The roar of Moses' Triumph is heard in the hills


The old ones are the best. laugh.gif

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 19:50
Post #1444784

QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 13:07) *
The roar of Moses' Triumph is heard in the hills

That’ll be the rotten exhaust.......

Posted by: Monster 900 Sat, 22 Dec 2018 - 16:30
Post #1444952

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 19:50) *
QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 21 Dec 2018 - 13:07) *
The roar of Moses' Triumph is heard in the hills

That’ll be the rotten exhaust.......


On my old Triumph there was always sufficient oil mist from the engine to prevent any rotting of the exhaust. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Fredd Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 23:07
Post #1445956

She https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/28/convicted-mp-fiona-onasanya-intends-to-stay-in-parliament...

QUOTE
she said constituents should “rest assured” that she would remain their representative fighting injustice in the corridors of power.


Looks like a 12 month sentence is going to be required to get this one out of the corridors of power.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 00:24
Post #1445986

QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 23:07) *
She https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/28/convicted-mp-fiona-onasanya-intends-to-stay-in-parliament...
QUOTE
she said constituents should “rest assured” that she would remain their representative fighting injustice in the corridors of power.


Looks like a 12 month sentence is going to be required to get this one out of the corridors of power.

That is the rational approach for her to take: She going from a 77k salary to being an unemployed ex-MP ex-solicitor with a conviction for dishonesty, so any job that puts her in a position of trust is off-limits. That being the case, she might as well try and hang on (and keep taking home £4.4k a month after tax) for as long as she can.

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 08:42
Post #1446002

Fighting injustice...... oh the irony!

I mean those speed cameras are so unjust.....

Posted by: Jlc Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 08:49
Post #1446003

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 08:42) *
Fighting injustice...... oh the irony!

I mean those speed cameras are so unjust.....

But bizarrely I think a large proportion of the public would think they are.

Posted by: anon45 Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 09:39
Post #1446006

QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 23:07) *
She https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/28/convicted-mp-fiona-onasanya-intends-to-stay-in-parliament...
QUOTE
she said constituents should “rest assured” that she would remain their representative fighting injustice in the corridors of power.


Looks like a 12 month sentence is going to be required to get this one out of the corridors of power.

The House of Commons retains the power to expel its members. In my opinion, and assuming she is indeed sentenced to fewer than 12 months in prison, it should use this power, rather than wasting time and money on a recall election.

Posted by: Redivi Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 17:42
Post #1446137

This comment was circulating a few years ago

Wonder what the up-to-date numbers are

Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600 employees and has the following statistics?

29 have been accused of spouse abuse
7 have been arrested for fraud
19 have been accused of writing bad cheques
117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses
3 have done time for assault
71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
4 have been arrested on drug-related charges
8 have been arrested for shoplifting
21 are currently defendants in lawsuits
84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year

Which organization is this?
Answer : 635 members of the House of Commons that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line

Posted by: andy_foster Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 22:34
Post #1446224

QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 17:42) *
This comment was circulating a few years ago

Wonder what the up-to-date numbers are


A lot of utter twaddle has been spamming the internet for many years. At least the knob.gifs who posted this version took the time to Anglicise the spelling of cheques from the American versions (variously claiming to relate to the NBA, NFL and Congress)

Before propagating such twaddle, perhaps posters could spend a few seconds googling passages from the aforementioned twaddle to see if sites such as snopes.com have debunked them - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congress-mend/

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 23:29
Post #1446235

Even if the numbers were true, what was the timescale, only two are ‘current’ accusations so if we add up all the MPs over the last 600 years that’s a pretty good record. Lack of critical thought applied.

Posted by: ViroBono Fri, 4 Jan 2019 - 20:04
Post #1447648

The Guardian occasionally has something worth reading, it seems: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/04/labour-confirms-expulsion-of-convicted-mp-fiona-onasanya

Evidently Onasanya's stated refusal to resign her seat angered the Politburo, and she's no longer a Labour MP or member of the party.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 15:40
Post #1447876

Very interesting, however this puzzles me: "Onasanya would be able to stand as a candidate if a recall petition was successfully triggered", is it possible to be a parliamentary candidate for a by-election from prison? Would she have to attend the count by video-link?

Posted by: Fredd Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 15:58
Post #1447887

You're assuming that she'll get an immediate custodial sentence, of course, rather than a suspended one.

Posted by: baggins1234 Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 16:47
Post #1447914

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 15:40) *
is it possible to be a parliamentary candidate for a by-election from prison? Would she have to attend the count by video-link?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Sands

He did


http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/member-of-parliament/

You still can...

Interestingly and moreover ironically the first line says “The rules about becoming an MP are less restrictive to those that apply to standing for election as a local councillor.”



QUOTE (Fredd @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 15:58) *
You're assuming that she'll get an immediate custodial sentence, of course, rather than a suspended one.



I would hope it wouldn’t be suspended...

Posted by: Fredd Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 17:01
Post #1447920

QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 16:47) *
Interestingly and moreover ironically the first line says “The rules about becoming an MP are less restrictive to those that apply to standing for election as a local councillor.”

Across the pond even http://mentalfloss.com/article/26281/4-dead-politicians-who-still-got-elected. biggrin.gif


QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 16:47) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 15:58) *
You're assuming that she'll get an immediate custodial sentence, of course, rather than a suspended one.



I would hope it wouldn’t be suspended...

Well, quite. However I take nothing for granted when it comes to https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/sep/25/oxford-student-lavinia-woodward-gets-suspended-sentence-for-stabbing-boyfriend.

Posted by: ViroBono Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 17:10
Post #1447923

QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 16:47) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 15:40) *
is it possible to be a parliamentary candidate for a by-election from prison? Would she have to attend the count by video-link?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Sands

He did




Momentum, whilst just as unsavoury, are probably not quite as persuasive as Sinn Fein/PIRA were in the 1970s.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 17:15
Post #1447927

QUOTE (Fredd @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 17:01) *
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 16:47) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 15:58) *
You're assuming that she'll get an immediate custodial sentence, of course, rather than a suspended one.



I would hope it wouldn’t be suspended...

Well, quite. However I take nothing for granted when it comes to https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/sep/25/oxford-student-lavinia-woodward-gets-suspended-sentence-for-stabbing-boyfriend.

Wait until some bleeding heart social worker doing the pre-sentence report deals with her health issues.

Posted by: oldstoat Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 17:20
Post #1447930

QUOTE (ViroBono @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 17:10) *
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 16:47) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 15:40) *
is it possible to be a parliamentary candidate for a by-election from prison? Would she have to attend the count by video-link?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Sands

He did




Momentum, whilst just as unsavoury, are probably not quite as persuasive as Sinn Fein/PIRA were in the 1970s.


prior to Bobby Sands there was no disqualification. The Representation of the Peoples Act 1981, was introduced as a direct result of the terrorists election to the UK Parliament

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 18:07
Post #1447942

QUOTE (Fredd @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 15:58) *
You're assuming that she'll get an immediate custodial sentence, of course, rather than a suspended one.

In that event I will be asking the Attorney General to consider referring the sentence to the Court of Appeal, and I don't imagine I'll be the only one.

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 21:19
Post #1447982

She seems to have upset the local Labour group as well, can't think why smile.gif
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/politics/peterborough-labour-will-campaign-to-remove-fiona-onasanya-group-leader-excited-at-beginning-new-chapter-1-8758773

TBH it seems hardly surprising that she isn't resigning.
Firstly it does seem that she is living in her own fantasy land, secondly, following example of her leader who refused to resign despite losing a vote of confidence brought by his own MPs in 2016.

She probably believes that she will be saved by the party members as he was.

Posted by: The Rookie Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 08:09
Post #1448038

My personal take is that the Labour party may well have a tricky bye election to fight and the last thing they want to be seen to be doing is support someone who most people view as a crook.

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 06:23
Post #1450426

Bit of a hatchet job in the Spectator, despite promising to continue her fight on brexit she didn't vote on the two recent amendments nor did has she spoken in the house this year.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/fiona-onasanya-goes-awol/

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 10:14
Post #1450464

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 06:23) *
Bit of a hatchet job in the Spectator, despite promising to continue her fight on brexit she didn't vote on the two recent amendments nor did has she spoken in the house this year.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/fiona-onasanya-goes-awol/



I did not pay particular attention but I recall seeing her make a speech in the Brexit debate before xmas

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:07
Post #1450476

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 10:14) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 06:23) *
Bit of a hatchet job in the Spectator, despite promising to continue her fight on brexit she didn't vote on the two recent amendments nor did has she spoken in the house this year.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/fiona-onasanya-goes-awol/



I did not pay particular attention but I recall seeing her make a speech in the Brexit debate before xmas



Her latest in the Peterborough news.... now as an independent MP
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/opinion/how-i-will-vote-on-may-s-brexit-deal-1-8766536

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:21
Post #1450479

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:14) *
I did not pay particular attention but I recall seeing her make a speech in the Brexit debate before xmas

As her trial ended the day before Parliament rose for Christmas that was likely to have been pre-retrial.

Posted by: Ocelot Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:13
Post #1450621

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:07) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 10:14) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 06:23) *
Bit of a hatchet job in the Spectator, despite promising to continue her fight on brexit she didn't vote on the two recent amendments nor did has she spoken in the house this year.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/fiona-onasanya-goes-awol/



I did not pay particular attention but I recall seeing her make a speech in the Brexit debate before xmas



Her latest in the Peterborough news.... now as an independent MP
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/opinion/how-i-will-vote-on-may-s-brexit-deal-1-8766536


I suppose technically she is an Independent MP now. I wonder for how long.

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 08:33
Post #1450770

QUOTE (Ocelot @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 18:13) *
...........I suppose technically she is an Independent MP now. I wonder for how long.


Nothing technical about it, she in an independent unless or until she is booted out or a party takes her in.
What tickled me is that she actually states that she is an independent.
She does sometimes tell the truth rolleyes.gif

Posted by: I am Weasel Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 16:58
Post #1451731

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi_oeKvoPDfAhVCyxoKHVU6AsYQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2019%2Fjan%2F15%2Fmp-fiona-onasanya-considering-appeal-against-conviction&psig=AOvVaw1_C1K9tLCkLQ_SMCxbJY7Y&ust=1547657706213098

She is considering appealing and has until tomorrow to do so. I fully expect she will attempt to drag this out as long as possible

Posted by: Fredd Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 18:41
Post #1451772

QUOTE (I am Weasel @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 16:58) *
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi_oeKvoPDfAhVCyxoKHVU6AsYQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2019%2Fjan%2F15%2Fmp-fiona-onasanya-considering-appeal-against-conviction&psig=AOvVaw1_C1K9tLCkLQ_SMCxbJY7Y&ust=1547657706213098

She is considering appealing and has until tomorrow to do so. I fully expect she will attempt to drag this out as long as possible

Even this decision seems to be down to Brexit...

Posted by: Churchmouse Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 00:07
Post #1451912

In the end, Fiona's attendance really didn't make much of a difference, did it?

--Churchmouse

Posted by: jdh Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 11:05
Post #1452388

The story that keeps on giving. Yesterday the story in the local paper was that the deadline for her to appeal had passed and a sentencing hearing was set for 29th Jan, today the story is that she has indeed appealed and the whole thing will drag on for a few more months yet.

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 17 Jan 2019 - 22:22
Post #1452668

The cynic in me wonders if the time to take on allowing (or not) an appeal and then the appeal plus her 77K a year salary as an MP are connected.
After all, another 6 months is worth over 37K.


Mind you, deluded also comes to mind.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 06:59
Post #1452715

Faced with a loss of her current job, and the impossibility of going back to her previous one, pretty much for life, I’d have thought an appeal was inevitable.

Meanwhile she has six months to practice asking people if they ‘want fries with that?’

Posted by: spanner345 Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 08:39
Post #1452718

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 06:59) *
Meanwhile she has six months to practice asking people if they ‘want fries with that?’

Surely the manager at Mc thingy wouldn't let her anywhere near the till.

Posted by: jdh Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 10:31
Post #1452752

That's OK, she can get her brother to cover her shift.

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 18 Jan 2019 - 16:41
Post #1452927

The thing is if she were to repent, she could hope in due course to land a job at some ex-offender rehabilitation charity, think tank or similar do gooder organisation.

Posted by: ViroBono Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 13:26
Post #1456717

Sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.

Reported in the http://"%20<a%20href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6643401/Disgraced-former-Labour-MP-Fiona-Onasanya-face-jail-arrives-court-sentenced.html""%20target="_blank">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-66...nced.html"</a>, BBC and on Twitter newsfeeds.

Festus got 10 months.

Posted by: BaggieBoy Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 13:36
Post #1456720

QUOTE (ViroBono @ Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 13:26) *
Reported in the http://"%20<a%20href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6643401/Disgraced-former-Labour-MP-Fiona-Onasanya-face-jail-arrives-court-sentenced.html""%20target="_blank">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-66...nced.html"</a>

Link doesn't work.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/29/labour-mp-fiona-onasanya-jailed-for-lying-speeding-ticket

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 13:42
Post #1456724

She won't be voting today then.
Seems very light, I would have put good money on over a year.

Posted by: Ocelot Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 13:54
Post #1456727

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6643401/Disgraced-former-Labour-MP-Fiona-Onasanya-face-jail-arrives-court-sentenced.html


Posted by: peterguk Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 16:45
Post #1456812

QUOTE (ViroBono @ Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 13:26) *
Sentenced to 3 months imprisonment.


So out in 6 weeks. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: I am Weasel Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 16:47
Post #1456814

indeed - verly light sentence and absolutely the worst case scenario for local politics because I suspect that she will not resign as MP etc

Posted by: Fredd Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 16:58
Post #1456819

The local paper has published the https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/peterborough-mp-fiona-onasanya-jailed-judge-s-sentencing-remarks-in-full-1-8788831. It seems her sob story was effective.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 17:00
Post #1456820

I wonder how the hook, fishing line and sinker tasted......

Posted by: Ocelot Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 19:20
Post #1456860

Still think she should have gone for the SAC.

Posted by: ViroBono Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 19:28
Post #1456863

QUOTE (Fredd @ Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 16:58) *
The local paper has published the https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/crime/peterborough-mp-fiona-onasanya-jailed-judge-s-sentencing-remarks-in-full-1-8788831. It seems her sob story was effective.


Indeed. Perhaps Kate Osamor wrote to the judge requesting leniency, whilst pretending not to be aware of the case, naturally.

Posted by: cabbyman Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 20:13
Post #1456875

Re: Post #168

BBC have just stated in today's report that she intends to appeal against her conviction. Is this just old news or can she do this now?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47040912

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 21:40
Post #1456930

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 20:13) *
Re: Post #168

BBC have just stated in today's report that she intends to appeal against her conviction. Is this just old news or can she do this now?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47040912

AFAIK providing she hasn't missed the deadlines she can.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 29 Jan 2019 - 21:55
Post #1456934

It'll be interesting to hear what the costs orders are.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 06:41
Post #1456983

Old news, she appealed in time and it was first reported shortly after, link up thread as I recall.

Posted by: cp8759 Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 12:29
Post #1457086

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 06:41) *
Old news, she appealed in time and it was first reported shortly after, link up thread as I recall.

Still no news of what her grounds are though.

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 15:35
Post #1457173

I'm still not happy with 3 months even having read through the Judge's words.
Even if we accept, as he did, that the initial acts were not deliberate, there came a point and he detailed when he thought that point was in November, when she made a deliberate decision to continue with the errors and actively deny any wrongdoing by trying to carry on with misleading the court.
She is a qualified solicitor and as an MP holds a position of trust, that alone should IMO carry weight within sentencing deliberations.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 15:54
Post #1457182

I agree.

As a legal point though I'm interested in understanding this, the Judge seems to have made a finding of fact by themselves on when and where she had PCOJ and where she had not, clearly the bald Jury verdict doesn't tell you which facts they decided on and which they did not, in this case the Jury may well have a very different finding to the Judges and it would be very salient to the sentencing, should we have a system like the US where the Jury recommend a punishment with their reasonings? The Jury may have accepted she had been complicit in the original naming of the wrong person (which she blamed on brother Fester) and had that been used in sentencing she'd have been away for a year plus, jet the judge decided on the contrary and gave just 3 months.

Posted by: little-freddie Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 18:38
Post #1457247

??? Yet, Huhne plead Guilty, ( albeit, at a late date,... ) and received 8 months?? As a solicitor, who should know better, and, having swapped her story two or three times,.. it seems a very light sentence,.. indeed, had she plead 'Guilty' & got the discount, she wouldn't hardly have time to 'book in'... I suspect, someone will appeal/query the sentence.....

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 18:49
Post #1457254

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 15:54) *
As a legal point though I'm interested in understanding this, the Judge seems to have made a finding of fact by themselves on when and where she had PCOJ and where she had not


The prosecution might have been put on the basis that she only had intent from a certain point in time. If that was the case then the judge could only have sentenced on that basis.

QUOTE
should we have a system like the US where the Jury recommend a punishment with their reasonings?

No. You’d pretty much have to repeal most of the sentencing legislation, that juries simply are in no position to apply.

QUOTE (little-freddie @ Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 18:38) *
??? Yet, Huhne plead Guilty, ( albeit, at a late date,... ) and received 8 months?? As a solicitor, who should know better, and, having swapped her story two or three times,.. it seems a very light sentence,.. indeed, had she plead 'Guilty' & got the discount, she wouldn't hardly have time to 'book in'... I suspect, someone will appeal/query the sentence.....

She probably had significant personal mitigation.

Posted by: Fredd Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 22:37
Post #1457363

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 18:49) *
She probably had significant personal mitigation.

Apparently so, in the view of The Honourable Mr Justice Stuart Smith anyway:

QUOTE
What takes your case out of the ordinary is your personal mitigation. I accept without reservation that this offence is totally out of character; and, as I have made clear, that it my have included an element of misplaced loyalty to your brother once you realised what had happened. You have no previous convictions. By your own efforts and personal qualities you have risen to a great height, which I am satisfied you intended to use not so much for personal advancement as for the cause of social justice which first persuaded you to go into politics. The character witnesses speak eloquently of your qualities and your exemplary character. You quickly made your mark as an able Member of Parliament and Parliamentarian and you have become a role model for many young black women who have been inspired by your attitude and achievements. I pay particular attention to the evidence of the person who was your school friend, now a barrister, who speaks of your ability to light up the room with your personality and who adds that even when at school you could sometimes be a little naïve and very trusting.


QUOTE
In any normal circumstances it would be incredible that you would not have realised that the NIP you received some nine days later related to a time when you were driving. But the evidence at trial showed that these were by no means normal circumstances for you. You had been elected to Parliament as the Member for Peterborough on 8 June 2017 and had first gone to Westminster on 12 June. Initially you had no staff, with your first member of staff being recruited at the end of June. You had no constituency office in Peterborough and were initially hot-desking or squatting on benches in the corridors at Westminster. Within four weeks you were appointed to the select committee for housing. You had to install additional security at home by the first week or so of July and were completely swamped by emails and post. You had no proper diary system in place. On all of the evidence, you were living a life that was extremely hectic and pretty chaotic.


QUOTE
As I have outlined, you have strong personal mitigation, which I take fully into account.

Have to stop there, I'm feeling rather queasy...

Posted by: southpaw82 Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 22:40
Post #1457367

QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 22:37) *
QUOTE
But your character witnesses, who have provided thoughtful and thought-provoking statements on your behalf, show that you have made substantial efforts to reform your life, with a real commitment to a Christian faith that has led you to be a mentor to others. I accept that, if you were not here, you would be on the cusp of a period of fulfilment and happiness both in pursuing a musical career and in your family life. I take all that has been said by your character witnesses into account as significant personal mitigation.



Was that about her or Festus? I wasn’t aware she had a musical career.

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 22:55
Post #1457374

QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 22:37) *
........Have to stop there, I'm feeling rather queasy...

I particularly was taken with the line "and you have become a role model for many young black women who have been inspired by your...."
Yup, inspired to lie, cheat and deceive to evade any responsibility and if copped for it, keep going and still blame others.

What ever happened to accepting responsibility for your own actions.
FFS, she sat down with an investigator and stuck to her guns that the information on the NIP was true.
That was the point when whether or not she acted deliberately earlier became irrelevant.
She chose at that point to actively participate in a scam and to try to bull it out.


QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 22:40) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 22:37) *
QUOTE
But your character witnesses, who have provided thoughtful and thought-provoking statements on your behalf, show that you have made substantial efforts to reform your life, with a real commitment to a Christian faith that has led you to be a mentor to others. I accept that, if you were not here, you would be on the cusp of a period of fulfilment and happiness both in pursuing a musical career and in your family life. I take all that has been said by your character witnesses into account as significant personal mitigation.



Was that about her or Festus? I wasn’t aware she had a musical career.


That was about Festus but it shows the same hook line and sinker that seems to have been successful

Posted by: little-freddie Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 23:46
Post #1457397

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6650437/Jailed-Labour-MP-Fiona-Onasanya-faces-having-sentence-extended.html





Seems a few folk have complained......

Posted by: Redivi Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 01:46
Post #1457412

Similar report in the Telegraph signals that the Attorney General is actually waiting to appeal the lenient sentence

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/30/exclusive-fiona-onasanyas-sentence-could-increased-government/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

Posted by: jdh Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 09:46
Post #1457461

So she is appealing the conviction but not the sentence and the AG is now looking at the sentence but not the conviction.

Posted by: Fredd Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 10:01
Post #1457466

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 22:40) *
Was that about her or Festus? I wasn’t aware she had a musical career.

You're quite right, I've removed that quote. It hasn't helped my queasy stomach much, though. smile.gif

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 10:18
Post #1457473

It definitely isn't reading for someone without a strong stomach.

I would be very happy for the AG to appeal the sentence as I think its risible, I feared they would not.

It's out of kilter with 90% of the cases in the 'happy to go to jail' thread, looks very much like some form of preferential treatment.

Posted by: Dwain Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 10:50
Post #1457483

Hi,

She actually had two bites at the cherry, why she didn't admit guilt after the first trail? that should surely have an effect on the sentence? She fought to the very end and then when found guilty claimed everything under the sun, good role model, suffering from MS (I wonder who signed that off), I am actually surprised that she didn't have a sick dog.

And what's more, the judge referenced her parliamentary salary as being her only form of income, no S*** Sherlock, what happens to totters who lose their licenses (and jobs) do the magistrates take into account single income then? Or in any custodial sentence for that matter? It seems like extremely favourable treatment to me.

A bit like the Black youth with the Zombie knife, fortunately sense prevailed in that case. I have very little faith it will here.

Dwain

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 11:00
Post #1457491

Judge reckoned Festus was worth 12months for each case.
Made it 10months with plea reductions and ran all three concurrently.

Judge makes a specific difference for her in that he accepted that she didn't instigate and that her deception only went on for a short time.
I can understand the didn't instigate bit can make a difference but what difference does the duration make in this sort of case ?

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 11:57
Post #1457505

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 11:00) *
I can understand the didn't instigate bit can make a difference but what difference does the duration make in this sort of case ?

Not instigating it was only worth 25% off to Vicky Pryce, she got 9 months to Chris Huhne's 12 months (before discount) which seems about right to me.

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 11:58
Post #1457506

I read in one newspaper costs estimated at £500,000.
£500,000 for two straightforward trials?

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 14:09
Post #1457539

QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 11:58) *
I read in one newspaper costs estimated at £500,000.
£500,000 for two straightforward trials?

Depends whose costs - just hers, both defendants, or the whole shebang? I can see costs hitting that amount on a private paying basis for a lengthy (2 week plus) jury trial.

Posted by: DancingDad Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 15:09
Post #1457560

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 11:57) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 11:00) *
I can understand the didn't instigate bit can make a difference but what difference does the duration make in this sort of case ?

Not instigating it was only worth 25% off to Vicky Pryce, she got 9 months to Chris Huhne's 12 months (before discount) which seems about right to me.

That's the sort of calculation I am doing.
IF accepted that she did not instigate, something like a 25% reduction
Perhaps more if accepted that she not only didn't instigate but had no knowledge of it to start with.
But then came a point in time when the authorities pulled her in for questioning.
To me that is the point where it beggars belief that she did not do more checks and if in doubt, put her hands up and say that the name given was obviously wrong, dunno how but nuffink to do with her.
That may have seen her in court but could also have seen her acquitted or even not charged for PCOJ due to doubt that it was a deliberate act.
Especially reading that summing up.



Posted by: I am Weasel Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 15:16
Post #1457562

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47071120

Fiona Onasanya: Peterborough MP's jail term to be reviewed

Posted by: Fredd Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 15:38
Post #1457571

QUOTE (I am Weasel @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 15:16) *
Fiona Onasanya: Peterborough MP's jail term to be reviewed

Unfortunately that just means they're going to have a look and decide whether to appeal the sentence.

Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 2 Feb 2019 - 20:43
Post #1458305

QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 15:38) *
QUOTE (I am Weasel @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 15:16) *
Fiona Onasanya: Peterborough MP's jail term to be reviewed

Unfortunately that just means they're going to have a look and decide whether to appeal the sentence.

I suspect they'll go for it though, as The Rookie says it's out of kilter with most of the cases we see and I would have expected at the very least 6 to 9 months, if not 12. Most people who plead guilty seem to get longer sentences and that's where they cough up straight away, Ms Onasanya had to go through two trials and still shows no indication of remorse or contrition.

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 11:20
Post #1458357

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 2 Feb 2019 - 20:43) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 15:38) *
QUOTE (I am Weasel @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 15:16) *
Fiona Onasanya: Peterborough MP's jail term to be reviewed

Unfortunately that just means they're going to have a look and decide whether to appeal the sentence.

I suspect they'll go for it though, as The Rookie says it's out of kilter with most of the cases we see and I would have expected at the very least 6 to 9 months, if not 12. Most people who plead guilty seem to get longer sentences and that's where they cough up straight away, Ms Onasanya had to go through two trials and still shows no indication of remorse or contrition.



Trouble here is that she has spun a tale that has been accepted.
A tale of ineptitude, sloppy attitude to paperwork and legal duties, little if any organisational skills and assumptions.
If that is believed, there is no deliberate attempt towards PCOJ and not guilty would be the only possible verdict.
The judge took the view that at a point in time it became unbelievable that she could not be aware of errors but continued to hold to the story.
That does make it deliberate and PCOJ from that point.
And where the Judge's view on duration plays a major role in length of sentence.
And a role I still do not understand?



Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 13:10
Post #1458375

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 11:20) *
The judge took the view that at a point in time it became unbelievable that she could not be aware of errors but continued to hold to the story.


It will almost certainly have been the jury that took that view - the judge can only sentence consistently with the jury’s verdict.

QUOTE
And where the Judge's view on duration plays a major role in length of sentence.
And a role I still do not understand?

What do you not understand?

Posted by: DancingDad Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 13:30
Post #1458383

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 13:10) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 11:20) *
The judge took the view that at a point in time it became unbelievable that she could not be aware of errors but continued to hold to the story.


It will almost certainly have been the jury that took that view - the judge can only sentence consistently with the jury’s verdict.

QUOTE
And where the Judge's view on duration plays a major role in length of sentence.
And a role I still do not understand?

What do you not understand?


AFAIK, the jury only decides on guilty or not guilty ?
It is the judge who decides on specific circumstances which impact sentencing.
If I am mistaken, please could someone explain.


Duration?
Why should this make any impact on sentence length in this instance?
I can understand an impact if for sake of argument, someone falsely filled in the S172, sent it off, had a change of heart and confessed before any investigation.
Would be PCOJ (as I understand it) but little impact and corrected in short time so would hope for a minimal sentence.
But in this case, I cannot see any difference duration makes?
Whether she decided to lie from the start or later (as the judge seemed to believe), what difference?
She still lied, still tried to bluff it out, still blamed all but herself.
In that respect I see no difference between 6 months duration of lies or 2 months.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 14:44
Post #1458399

I have no idea how the prosecution case was presented. It may have been presented on the basis that the PCOJ only began at the interview. The jury is there to decide the facts, not just guilt. The judge can only sentence based on the facts found by the jury. So, if his view is that the intention was formed at a certain stage that must have been a finding of fact by the jury implicit in their guilty verdict. I wouldn’t be surprised, therefore, if that was the basis the prosecution was put. Otherwise, how would the judge know that was the jury’s finding?

The judge will take everything into account when sentencing, including the findings of the jury (implicit from their guilty verdict) and anything admitted put forward by the prosecution or defence.

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 21:42
Post #1458498

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 14:44) *
I have no idea how the prosecution case was presented. It may have been presented on the basis that the PCOJ only began at the interview. The jury is there to decide the facts, not just guilt. The judge can only sentence based on the facts found by the jury. So, if his view is that the intention was formed at a certain stage that must have been a finding of fact by the jury implicit in their guilty verdict. I wouldn’t be surprised, therefore, if that was the basis the prosecution was put. Otherwise, how would the judge know that was the jury’s finding?

The judge will take everything into account when sentencing, including the findings of the jury (implicit from their guilty verdict) and anything admitted put forward by the prosecution or defence.

Well that's interesting because:

I find your evidence that you failed to check properly what you had been doing on 24 July and that you passed the NIP to your mother’s home to be credible, supported as it is by your brother’s evidence that he was passed the NIP by your mother. What matters is that I am not sure that you passed it to your brother (directly or indirectly) with the intention of perverting the course of public justice. Similarly, Mr Onasanya, I find it credible that you were passed the NIP for 24 July 2017 by your mother.
...
I am not sure that you sent the letter of 20 September 2017 with the intention of perverting the course of justice. You may have done; but I am not sure of it and must therefore give you the benefit of the doubt for the purpose of sentencing.

If the jury found her guilty of PCOJ on all counts, can the judge still give her the benefit of the doubt?

Posted by: southpaw82 Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 00:36
Post #1458521

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 21:42) *
If the jury found her guilty of PCOJ on all counts, can the judge still give her the benefit of the doubt?

Only if it doesn’t conflict with the jury’s verdict. I don’t know over what period the charge(s) related to.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 07:09
Post #1458529

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 00:36) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 21:42) *
If the jury found her guilty of PCOJ on all counts, can the judge still give her the benefit of the doubt?

Only if it doesn’t conflict with the jury’s verdict. I don’t know over what period the charge(s) related to.

Well if the charge doesn't cover that period, the judge had no choice either. If she hasn't been convicted of sending the letter on 20 September 2017 with intent to PCOJ, the judge can hardly sentence her on the basis that she had, that would be sentencing her on the basis of a crime she hadn't been charged with, let alone convicted. I guess the thing I find bizarre is that the judge made factual findings in his sentencing remarks which I would expect in a civil trial, but not in a criminal case where findings of fact are for the jury.

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 09:24
Post #1458552

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 07:09) *
I guess the thing I find bizarre is that the judge made factual findings in his sentencing remarks which I would expect in a civil trial, but not in a criminal case where findings of fact are for the jury.

That was my point as raised earlier, the sentencing remarks suggest the Judge made a finding (or findings) of fact independent of the Jury.

That in itself, if true, would give good grounds for an appeal of the sentence. Meanwhile we're paying a convicted criminal (of a crime of 'moral turpitude' as the Merkins so quaintly, and aptly, put it) to be in parliament while she drags it out as long as possible (Pension, salary and she'll probably get to claim most the income tax paid back as well!).

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 09:45
Post #1458558

The Judge's summing up would be interesting.
My understanding is that any facts a jury finds on are secret. That no one gets to know.
Including the judge
They decide on "facts" but then use them to decide on verdict.
However the summing up should detail what the questions are, summarise defence and prosecution stances and relevant points of law.
It may be that no evidence was offered or that the question of deliberate act from NIP was open and that the summing up made this clear.
If jury only had a choice of PCOJ from interview but not NIP then that would make sense of sentencing remarks.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 11:29
Post #1458581

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 09:45) *
It may be that no evidence was offered or that the question of deliberate act from NIP was open and that the summing up made this clear.
If jury only had a choice of PCOJ from interview but not NIP then that would make sense of sentencing remarks.

It still doesn't make sense to me though. Either the prosecution's case was that the letter of 20 September 2017 was sent with a criminal intent, or it wasn't (this was a Crown Court trial so I assume the allegations were adequately particularised). If this wasn't the prosecution's case, there was nothing on which to give the benefit of the doubt, and the letter of 20 September 2017 would have been irrelevant for the purposes of sentencing. If on the other hand the prosecution's case was that the letter of 20 September 2017 was sent with criminal intent and on that charge she was convicted, I don't see how the judge can give the defendant the benefit of the doubt.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 11:49
Post #1458594

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 09:24) *
Meanwhile we're paying a convicted criminal (of a crime of 'moral turpitude' as the Merkins so quaintly, and aptly, put it) to be in parliament while she drags it out as long as possible (Pension, salary and she'll probably get to claim most the income tax paid back as well!).

The rules of remaining an MP are very clear, and she is entitled to remain one currently.

It is evidently right that her constituents should have the power as to whether to remove her or not. It would not be desirable for judges and juries to remove MPs for blindingly obvious reasons.

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 11:56
Post #1458599

Full sentencing remarks as recorded
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/sentencing-remarks-onasanyadocx.pdf
"I do not accept and am not constrained by the verdict to accept all of the Prosecution’s case and allegations about your conduct. Having presided over your trial, and having reviewed the evidence again in preparation for today, I have reached my own conclusions about your involvement in the second of these three offences, which I believe to be consistent with the evidence
as a whole and the verdict of the jury. "
" I am not sure that you sent the letter of 20 September 2017 with the intention of perverting the course of justice"
(My bolds for emphasis - there is no mention of the Jury)

The Judge then concludes that the Jury convicted based on the last of the three communications, without, as far as I can see any evidence upon which to base that conclusion about the Juries verdict.
"It was a disastrous decision; but it was a decision which, on the evidence and the verdict of the jury, you took. "

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 23:42
Post #1458826

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 11:49) *
.........It would not be desirable for judges and juries to remove MPs for blindingly obvious reasons.


Seems obvious to me that she is a criminal and has taken deceit, lies and misdirection to a new level even for MPs so should not remain one.
It is also within the remit of the courts and judges to remove MPs within current rules.
Just sentence any MP to 12 months or more...job done.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 00:02
Post #1458836

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 23:42) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 11:49) *
.........It would not be desirable for judges and juries to remove MPs for blindingly obvious reasons.


Seems obvious to me that she is a criminal and has taken deceit, lies and misdirection to a new level even for MPs so should not remain one.
It is also within the remit of the courts and judges to remove MPs within current rules.
Just sentence any MP to 12 months or more...job done.

To be fair as I understand it, that is not a relevant sentencing consideration.

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 09:31
Post #1458866

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 00:02) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 23:42) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 11:49) *
.........It would not be desirable for judges and juries to remove MPs for blindingly obvious reasons.


Seems obvious to me that she is a criminal and has taken deceit, lies and misdirection to a new level even for MPs so should not remain one.
It is also within the remit of the courts and judges to remove MPs within current rules.
Just sentence any MP to 12 months or more...job done.

To be fair as I understand it, that is not a relevant sentencing consideration.


But it is a possible sentencing result given current parliamentary rules.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 13:51
Post #1458951

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 09:31) *
But it is a possible sentencing result given current parliamentary rules.

I don't think a judge should take that into account. The judge should sentence on the basis that he would even if there were no legislation about the recall of MPs. I think it would be quite improper for the judge to think to himself "well, I would pass an 11 month sentence, but if I up it by a month she'll lose her seat as an MP so I'll pass a 12 month sentence".

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 16:02
Post #1459005

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 13:51) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 09:31) *
But it is a possible sentencing result given current parliamentary rules.

I don't think a judge should take that into account. The judge should sentence on the basis that he would even if there were no legislation about the recall of MPs. I think it would be quite improper for the judge to think to himself "well, I would pass an 11 month sentence, but if I up it by a month she'll lose her seat as an MP so I'll pass a 12 month sentence".


That's not what I am saying.
I doubt very much whether any judge would add a little on just to force a career change.
Cannot discount it though, however it would not be something within the sentencing statement.
We have seen cases where judges have taken potential impact on future career or prospects and used that to reduce a sentence.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/25/oxford-student-judge-suggested-bright-prison-spared-jail-stabbing/
for example.
The point I was making was in response to NMLs assertion that judges should not be able to get an MP fired.
Simple fact is that they can should they decide that the sentence should be 12 months or longer.
And not only MPs, many jobs have rules that preclude someone with a criminal record or a conviction for certain crimes.
Including in this case her other career.
She can no longer practice as a solicitor due to the conviction.

Posted by: The Slithy Tove Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 08:14
Post #1459951

Much as I am disgusted by her complete lack of morals:

  1. Given the current political state, she's very far from being alone with that attribute
  2. The folk of Northern Ireland did elect Bobby Sands, although he was never in a position actually to take his seat. [If you're too young to know who he was, look him up.]

Posted by: rosturra Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 10:13
Post #1460331

QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 08:14) *
[*]The folk of Northern Ireland did elect Bobby Sands, although he was never in a position actually to take his seat. [If you're too young to know who he was, look him up.]


Not that an Irish Nationalist would have taken a seat in HoC anyway...





Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 9 Feb 2019 - 10:39
Post #1460336

QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 08:14) *
Much as I am disgusted by her complete lack of morals:
  1. Given the current political state, she's very far from being alone with that attribute
  2. The folk of Northern Ireland did elect Bobby Sands, although he was never in a position actually to take his seat. [If you're too young to know who he was, look him up.]

While I never understood or agreed with a criminal such as Sands being electable, he was honest by his own lights.
Fighting for a political principle, misguided or simply wrong, terrorist or freedom fighter depends very much on personal outlook.
Something I cannot say for an MP who simply lies and tries to play the system to avoid a speeding charge.
There is no acceptable moral compass there.

Posted by: Redivi Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 00:41
Post #1460552

Can't recall many civil rights that resulted from asking nicely

Women's votes, trial by jury, trade unions all followed actions that, under current laws, are classed as terrorism

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 16:03
Post #1461043

QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 00:41) *
Can't recall many civil rights that resulted from asking nicely

Women's votes, trial by jury, trade unions all followed actions that, under current laws, are classed as terrorism

The rationale might be that universal suffrage means political change can be achieved by peaceful and lawful means.

Posted by: oldstoat Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 16:40
Post #1461061

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 16:03) *
QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 00:41) *
Can't recall many civil rights that resulted from asking nicely

Women's votes, trial by jury, trade unions all followed actions that, under current laws, are classed as terrorism

The rationale might be that universal suffrage means political change can be achieved by peaceful and lawful means.



yeah right. I think it actually means that someone advocating a terrorist cause now, can use history to justify the ends by any means. for example ISIS, the IRA, Baader Minhof etc. Just because, they lost, using your rationale, means, they or any whack job, using terrorist means are potentially correct.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:01
Post #1461074

QUOTE (oldstoat @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 16:40) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 16:03) *
QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 00:41) *
Can't recall many civil rights that resulted from asking nicely

Women's votes, trial by jury, trade unions all followed actions that, under current laws, are classed as terrorism

The rationale might be that universal suffrage means political change can be achieved by peaceful and lawful means.



yeah right. I think it actually means that someone advocating a terrorist cause now, can use history to justify the ends by any means. for example ISIS, the IRA, Baader Minhof etc. Just because, they lost, using your rationale, means, they or any whack job, using terrorist means are potentially correct.

I don't see how you could possibly reach that conclusion. I would read things the opposite way: In the past, where seeking change through democratic means was impossible, there may well have been circumstances where acts that would today be classed as terrorism would be justified (say blowing up a Gestapo office). Today, at least in democratic counties, such actions cannot be justified so they are rightly outlawed under the terrorism acts.

Posted by: oldstoat Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:10
Post #1461085

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:01) *
QUOTE (oldstoat @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 16:40) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 16:03) *
QUOTE (Redivi @ Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 00:41) *
Can't recall many civil rights that resulted from asking nicely

Women's votes, trial by jury, trade unions all followed actions that, under current laws, are classed as terrorism

The rationale might be that universal suffrage means political change can be achieved by peaceful and lawful means.



yeah right. I think it actually means that someone advocating a terrorist cause now, can use history to justify the ends by any means. for example ISIS, the IRA, Baader Minhof etc. Just because, they lost, using your rationale, means, they or any whack job, using terrorist means are potentially correct.

I don't see how you could possibly reach that conclusion. I would read things the opposite way: In the past, where seeking change through democratic means was impossible, there may well have been circumstances where acts that would today be classed as terrorism would be justified (say blowing up a Gestapo office). Today, at least in democratic counties, such actions cannot be justified so they are rightly outlawed under the terrorism acts.


but the ISIS or the IRA or any other nut job, cannot get change through democratic means, because they are considered to be nut jobs. But seeing as we have precedence that what was terrorism, in the past , is now called justified, the whack job can use that precedence to use terror to try and become normal, in the future.

Posted by: cp8759 Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:18
Post #1461090

QUOTE (oldstoat @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:10) *
but the ISIS or the IRA or any other nut job, cannot get change through democratic means, because they are considered to be nut jobs. But seeing as we have precedence that what was terrorism, in the past , is now called justified, the whack job can use that precedence to use terror to try and become normal, in the future.

ISIS or the IRA might be proscribed groups, but its their methods that are prohibited, not their objectives.

There's nothing to stop someone campaigning for Irish reunification through a border poll, indeed there are provisions for such a scenario in international law and the nationalists have been campaigning for such an outcome for years.

Similarly, there is nothing to stop anyone setting up a political party for the purposes of campaigning that the UK should become an Islamic theocracy subject to a very strict interpretation of sharia law, as long as such a party were to use purely lawful and peaceful means to promote its objectives, there would be nothing illegal about it.

Posted by: oldstoat Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:25
Post #1461094

but the premise your reply is that universal sufferage, means political change can be achieved by peaceful and lawful means. Clearly not so. The Belfast and Good Friday agreements where only brought about by terror. ISIS achieved things by terror. If either had been more succesful, we would all be sat here agreeing that the hegemony created by these nutters, was now the norm

Posted by: Fredd Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:38
Post #1461103

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:01) *
In the past, where seeking change through democratic means was impossible, there may well have been circumstances where acts that would today be classed as terrorism would be justified

Including some parts of the women's suffrage movement, of course - and I don't imagine there'd be many people nowadays who'd want to characterise their (fairly ineffectual) bombing campaign as terrorism.

Posted by: oldstoat Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 18:11
Post #1461112

QUOTE (Fredd @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:38) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 17:01) *
In the past, where seeking change through democratic means was impossible, there may well have been circumstances where acts that would today be classed as terrorism would be justified

Including some parts of the women's suffrage movement, of course - and I don't imagine there'd be many people nowadays who'd want to characterise their (fairly ineffectual) bombing campaign as terrorism.


really? They used arson and bombing as a means to effect change. Rather similar to the IRA. Both in the end got pretty much what they wanted.

Posted by: DancingDad Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 18:36
Post #1461120

QUOTE (oldstoat @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 18:11) *
.........really? They used arson and bombing as a means to effect change. Rather similar to the IRA. Both in the end got pretty much what they wanted.


I think you need to check your history.
The IRA or more properly the Irish Problem has been going on for centuries, has not been resolved and won't be, in the eyes of the IRA/Republicans, until NI is united with Eire and the UK has no control whatsoever.
All the Good Friday Agreement did was to broker a conditional peace.
It could be said that it has or may resolve the problem for the majority on both sides but all that violence did was to eventually get people sick enough of it to be prepared to talk.

And I rather doubt that any act of violence had any direct impact on women's suffrage.
Bedroom power probably had a lot more influence on the success.
Nagging wives will also influence men in power.

Posted by: Fredd Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 18:48
Post #1461125

At the risk of diverting discussion back to the original subject smile.gif, her appeal will be heard (and hopefully rapidly disposed of) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47203814

It's still jarring being reminded that the sentence was only 3 months.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 00:31
Post #1461236

QUOTE (Fredd @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 18:48) *
At the risk of diverting discussion back to the original subject smile.gif, her appeal will be heard (and hopefully rapidly disposed of) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47203814

It's still jarring being reminded that the sentence was only 3 months.

Can the appeal against sentence, and the AG's referral under the ULS scheme be heard, and disposed of, at the same time?

Would be a very efficient use of course time for them to decide, in one fell swoop, that she is in fact guilty and she can stay in prison for longer for her troubles.

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 11:40
Post #1461337

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 12 Feb 2019 - 00:31) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Mon, 11 Feb 2019 - 18:48) *
At the risk of diverting discussion back to the original subject smile.gif, her appeal will be heard (and hopefully rapidly disposed of) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47203814

It's still jarring being reminded that the sentence was only 3 months.

Can the appeal against sentence, and the AG's referral under the ULS scheme be heard, and disposed of, at the same time?

Would be a very efficient use of course time for them to decide, in one fell swoop, that she is in fact guilty and she can stay in prison for longer for her troubles.


Not a scoobie but IMO efficient use of time and our court system are oxymorons.

Posted by: peterguk Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 13:00
Post #1467670

Fiona Onasanya loses her High Court challenge after being jailed for lying to police over speeding offence

Rejecting Onasanya's appeal bid, Sir Brian Leveson said: 'In conclusion, this applicant was tried fairly by a jury, who rejected her evidence on oath.

'There was no error of law in the approach of the judge, whose directions... were clear and accurate, nor was there any other irregularity with the trial.

'It is a tragedy that she has damaged, probably irreparably, a promising political career, but there is absolutely no basis for challenging her conviction.'


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6772663/Fiona-Onasanya-arrived-Royal-Courts-Justice-central-London-ahead-appeal.html

Posted by: BaggieBoy Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 14:47
Post #1467740

Appeal lost:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47455618

Hopefully will now give up her seat (yeah, right).

Posted by: Fredd Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 16:28
Post #1467792

And still she's in denial:

QUOTE (Peterborough Telegraph)
Representing herself at the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, Onasanya told the court: “The charge against me was perverting the course of justice.

“I said from the outset, and I still maintain my innocence, that I did not do that.”

Posted by: rosturra Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 20:27
Post #1467906

QUOTE (Fredd @ Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 16:28) *
And still she's in denial:

QUOTE (Peterborough Telegraph)
Representing herself at the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, Onasanya told the court: “The charge against me was perverting the course of justice.

“I said from the outset, and I still maintain my innocence, that I did not do that.”




I'm a bit bemused on what her grounds were for the Challenge.
Perhaps m'learned friends here can elaborate.

I assume there has to be a technical argument to (try to) strike out verdict as some sort of mis-trial?

Simply saying "...I still maintain my innocence, that I did not do that"
is just refuting facts which have already been decided by the jury in the previous trial.

Anyone person found guilty of any offence could say that.

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 20:35
Post #1467908

There is a single ground of appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act 1968

QUOTE
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Court of Appeal—

(a) shall allow an appeal against conviction if they think that the conviction is unsafe; and

(b) shall dismiss such an appeal in any other case.


God knows what arguments were put forward to suggest the conviction was unsafe... misdirection to the jury? I’m sure it’ll be reported soon.

Posted by: Fredd Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 20:36
Post #1467909

Her argument seems to have been that she couldn't get a fair trial because of all the media coverage.

Posted by: cp8759 Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 20:43
Post #1467913

One thing I wonder is, assuming the required 7,000 or so signatures are gathered, will she bother contending the by-election?

Posted by: southpaw82 Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 21:01
Post #1467924

QUOTE (Fredd @ Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 20:36) *
Her argument seems to have been that she couldn't get a fair trial because of all the media coverage.

I’d have expected that to have been raised pre-trial and appealed pre-trial if the judge ruled against it. However, I haven’t set foot in a Crown Court for 11 years!

Posted by: freddy1 Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 22:01
Post #1467947

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/05/mp-fiona-onasanya-loses-attempt-to-appeal-against-conviction

From the article :

"Any custodial or suspended sentence of less than a year that is not appealed against would automatically trigger a recall petition under the Recall of MPs Act 2015."

It seems clear why she decided to appeal against the sentence, even if the judges considered her unprepared.

She avoids the automatic triggering of a recall petition.

The lady is calculating, not stupid.

Posted by: Fredd Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 23:34
Post #1467972

However now that she can no longer appeal against it, a recall petition has indeed been initiated, as directed by the Speaker of the House of Commons today.

And she clearly is stupid, given how much she risked for how little gain.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 03:35
Post #1468002

QUOTE (Fredd @ Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 23:34) *
And she clearly is stupid, given how much she risked for how little gain.

Even IF she didn't PCOJ she was stupid in not reading the NIP and bothering (as a solicitor.....) to understand the legal requirements placed upon her, if she did PCOJ then yes, stupid doesn't do her justice.

Posted by: Churchmouse Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 13:18
Post #1468178

QUOTE (freddy1 @ Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 22:01) *
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/05/mp-fiona-onasanya-loses-attempt-to-appeal-against-conviction

From the article :

"Any custodial or suspended sentence of less than a year that is not appealed against would automatically trigger a recall petition under the Recall of MPs Act 2015."

It seems clear why she decided to appeal against the sentence, even if the judges considered her unprepared.

She avoids the automatic triggering of a recall petition.

The lady is calculating, not stupid.

Ummm, no. It seems that the Guardian article has been changed, because those words are no longer in the linked article. It would have been very odd if the Recall of MPs Act 2015 had not mentioned whether the "appeal" needed to be successful or not. Indeed, it does mention this. The Guardian's (original) reporting was lazy: under the Act, the original "conviction, sentence or order" must not have been overturned on appeal, in order for a recall to proceed.

Simply launching an appeal, without having any basis for doing so and without having engaged counsel or prepared any arguments or legal case in support, was self-evidently stupid. This person was elected as an MP... This case was no "tragedy". Thank god she will not be representing clients as a solicitor in future.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: big_mac Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 01:09
Post #1468528

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 6 Mar 2019 - 13:18) *
Simply launching an appeal, without having any basis for doing so and without having engaged counsel or prepared any arguments or legal case in support, was self-evidently stupid.

Was it? Delaying the recall petition 6 weeks - that's close to £9k of MP's salary. Would engaging counsel have brought more benefit than that?
(I think it's probably the most sensible thing she has done in terms of risk vs reward!).

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 7 Mar 2019 - 03:53
Post #1468535

Indeed, plus her recall petition may be lost in the Brexit befuddle next week, although as an ardent remainer representing a leave constituency its also possible the opposite may apply. We'll know soon enough.
Recall petition opens on the 19th and runs for 6 weeks or until 7000 (10%) sign whichever is shorter.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47475020

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 19 Mar 2019 - 10:01
Post #1472181

Still pleading her innocence!

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/fiona-onasanya-twitter-video-innocence-15991696

In text
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/isgraced-mp-fiona-onasanya-pleads-to-keep-job-as-voters-set-to-sign-petition-that-could-see-her-ousted/18/03/

Doesn't seem to want to put her side despite her saying she would!

Posted by: peterguk Tue, 19 Mar 2019 - 10:05
Post #1472183

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 19 Mar 2019 - 10:01) *
Still pleading her innocence!

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/fiona-onasanya-twitter-video-innocence-15991696

I guess the prospect of losing two lucrative carreers is sinking in...


"My defence was never put across in the media." But it was in court, and the jury rejected it. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Umkomaas Tue, 19 Mar 2019 - 12:59
Post #1472255

QUOTE
But just like a coin has two sides, so does a story, and this is my time now to share with you, without media spin, what my side of the story is

But she never gave any account or explanation of her innocence in the video. If she can't articulate her innocence in her video about her innocence there's no hope. It seemed little more than a cynical, grovelling plea to keep her publicly funded income.

I expect she'll be getting an alternative publicly funded income real soon - Job Seekers Allowance!

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 19 Mar 2019 - 13:12
Post #1472260

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Tue, 19 Mar 2019 - 12:59) *
I expect she'll be getting an alternative publicly funded income real soon - Job Seekers Allowance!

Would she qualify while wearing that ankle bracelet?

Posted by: DancingDad Tue, 19 Mar 2019 - 13:54
Post #1472275

I seem to remember an old saying that prison is full of innocent people.

She has had two (three if you include an appeal) to put her side forward.

Hopefully she is practicing for her new career.... "Do you want fries with that?"

Posted by: buttonpusher Tue, 26 Mar 2019 - 10:20
Post #1473860

And if someone comes back with a complaint she'll say " Sorry, that was my Russian colleague who served you"

Posted by: ViroBono Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 10:39
Post #1477623

Today, the inevitable news that Onasanya is to be dealt with by the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal.

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 12:25
Post #1477647

Recall petition ends on 1st May as well......

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 13:15
Post #1477664

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 13:25) *
Recall petition ends on 1st May as well......


Too late to stop her sticking two more fingers up to her constituents.
I note she voted for the block on no deal, despite Peterborough returning a 60.9% vote in favour of Brexit.

Posted by: 666 Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 17:20
Post #1477719

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 14:15) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 13:25) *
Recall petition ends on 1st May as well......


Too late to stop her sticking two more fingers up to her constituents.
I note she voted for the block on no deal, despite Peterborough returning a 60.9% vote in favour of Brexit.

She's not all bad, then wink.gif

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 19:37
Post #1477737

Depends if you favour the 60.9%, the 39.1% or the democratic idea that says that she should represent the majority view of her constituents even if she disagrees.

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 06:24
Post #1477755

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 14:15) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 13:25) *
Recall petition ends on 1st May as well......


Too late to stop her sticking two more fingers up to her constituents.
I note she voted for the block on no deal, despite Peterborough returning a 60.9% vote in favour of Brexit.

Do we know if those people voted for a no deal brexit, or voted leave in the anticipation of leaving with a trade deal in place (which the leave campaign told us would be easy, and actually was just they won’t vote for it)? If it’s the latter then she was voting correctly for her constituents?

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 07:14
Post #1477756

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 07:24) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 14:15) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 13:25) *
Recall petition ends on 1st May as well......


Too late to stop her sticking two more fingers up to her constituents.
I note she voted for the block on no deal, despite Peterborough returning a 60.9% vote in favour of Brexit.

Do we know if those people voted for a no deal brexit, or voted leave in the anticipation of leaving with a trade deal in place (which the leave campaign told us would be easy, and actually was just they won’t vote for it)? If it’s the latter then she was voting correctly for her constituents?


Of course we don't know what each and every Brexit voter wanted.... except to leave.
It is however that sort of "conscience clearing" plus political voting and self interest that has brought us to where we are with Brexit.


Posted by: 666 Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 10:46
Post #1477802

QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 20:37) *
Depends if you favour the 60.9%, the 39.1% or the democratic idea that says that she should represent the majority view of her constituents even if she disagrees.

No-one voted for a "no-deal" Brexit, it wasn't on the ballot paper in the advisory referendum.

And it is well-established that MPs are representatives, not delegates.

NB None of that means that the lady in question is not a loathsome individual.

Posted by: Dwain Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 10:56
Post #1477810

QUOTE (666 @ Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 11:46) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 12 Apr 2019 - 20:37) *
Depends if you favour the 60.9%, the 39.1% or the democratic idea that says that she should represent the majority view of her constituents even if she disagrees.

No-one voted for a "no-deal" Brexit, it wasn't on the ballot paper in the advisory referendum.

And it is well-established that MPs are representatives, not delegates.

NB None of that means that the lady in question is not a loathsome individual.


Actually I voted for a no deal brexit. I note today that the Treasury blocked a digital border that Javid suggested. We need to remember that the civil service is not independent and is basically a remainer organisation. Remind me, how many referendums have been held in the EU that have actually been upheld when a negative was returned? Sign of a good democratic system, or not?

Dwain

Posted by: Fredd Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 11:43
Post #1477818

There's a Brexit thread somewhere if you want to have a discussion about that. This thread is about the hopefully soon to be ex-MP and solicitor.

Posted by: Glacier2 Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 12:39
Post #1477827

Any idea how the recall petition is doing?

Posted by: DancingDad Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 12:46
Post #1477828

QUOTE (Glacier2 @ Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 13:39) *
Any idea how the recall petition is doing?



Not going to know until after May 1st.
Physical signings, not online with a running count.
https://www.peterborough.gov.uk/council/elections/public-notice-of-petition-to-remove-the-mp-for-peterborough-fiona-onasanya/

Posted by: Redivi Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 20:24
Post #1477928

Saw a report a couple of days ago that she has a meeting to decide if she should be struck off the solicitors register

Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 22:11
Post #1477971

QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 13 Apr 2019 - 21:24) *
Saw a report a couple of days ago that she has a meeting to decide if she should be struck off the solicitors register

I’m not sure it can be done via a meeting (unless she’s volunteering to come off), it would require a hearing before the SDT.

Posted by: Glacier2 Wed, 1 May 2019 - 14:58
Post #1481944

Today's the day.

Should know this evening if she has been recalled.

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 1 May 2019 - 15:27
Post #1481955

Vote closes at 5, papers seem to think it won't be announced until the morning.

Posted by: Fredd Wed, 1 May 2019 - 18:04
Post #1481986

Well done, Peterborough - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-48123355.

I wonder if such a large number will finally puncture her reality distortion field, or whether she'll still insist on standing as an independent?

Posted by: The Rookie Wed, 1 May 2019 - 19:42
Post #1482007

I would have thought the deposit was worth the risk in her position, no MP job and she’s trying to upsell with fries for a while, compared to a salary she isn’t qualified to earn anywhere regardless of her conviction.

Posted by: DancingDad Wed, 1 May 2019 - 21:37
Post #1482034

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 1 May 2019 - 20:42) *
I would have thought the deposit was worth the risk in her position, no MP job and she’s trying to upsell with fries for a while, compared to a salary she isn’t qualified to earn anywhere regardless of her conviction.

The stupid thing is, she could win as an independent considering the general displeasure that there seems to be to the two main parties.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 2 May 2019 - 07:22
Post #1482080

Except that Peterborough is a fairly strong leave constituency and she has been an ardent remain voter in the house...... That may (hopefully) be enough to cook her goose!

Posted by: Fredd Thu, 2 May 2019 - 07:54
Post #1482085

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 2 May 2019 - 08:22) *
That may (hopefully) be enough to cook her goose!

That and the fact that 27% of the electorate (very nearly the same number who voted for her last time around) are so pissed off with her that they went to the trouble of going to one of a handful of signing points specifically in order to get rid of her. I don't think that sticking an "independent" label on is going to overcome that degree of loathing, however infuriated people are with the political class ATM.

Posted by: jdh Thu, 2 May 2019 - 11:00
Post #1482134

She might get some votes as an independent as long as she doesn't use her own name on the ballot paper.

Posted by: Rallyman72 Thu, 2 May 2019 - 18:19
Post #1482228

I understand there is an SDT hearing in August.

In many ways I am not surprised at the number electing to sign the petition since I haven't spoken to anyone who would admit to supporting her, all have said they would sign to get rid of her. 19,261 (27.6%) voted to 'sack' her, just 22,950 (32.4%) voted to elect her.

It is a great shame, irrespective of anyones political leanings, to see an individual effect such a catastrophic action in terms of the impact on their future life and career.

It'll be interesting to see what the by-election brings.

And just for clarity I do not live in her constituency.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 2 May 2019 - 20:29
Post #1482254

QUOTE
It is a great shame, irrespective of anyones political leanings, to see an individual effect such a catastrophic action in terms of the impact on their future life and career.



I can only say in response to this. though sh1t. She was an MP and a solicitor. not an uneducated person, and chose her course of action, and her statements after the event show to me at least it was a pre meditated decision borne of a feeling of entitlement that the law does not apply to them

anyone that commits a crime of dishonesty jeopardises any career prospects and she knew better but didn't care thinking herself untouchable or too clever by half

Posted by: Churchmouse Fri, 3 May 2019 - 11:21
Post #1482365

Yes, there are many occupations in which "a little dishonesty" is tolerated, but anyone entering the legal profession knows the likely consequences of doing what she did. It will be a tough lesson--which I'm equally sure she will not learn.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: Rallyman72 Fri, 3 May 2019 - 18:56
Post #1482436

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 2 May 2019 - 20:29) *
QUOTE
It is a great shame, irrespective of anyones political leanings, to see an individual effect such a catastrophic action in terms of the impact on their future life and career.



I can only say in response to this. though sh1t. She was an MP and a solicitor. not an uneducated person, and chose her course of action, and her statements after the event show to me at least it was a pre meditated decision borne of a feeling of entitlement that the law does not apply to them

anyone that commits a crime of dishonesty jeopardises any career prospects and she knew better but didn't care thinking herself untouchable or too clever by half


I didn't mean to imply that this was not premeditated. In fact I agree with you that it was and has been followed by a stupefying level of arrogance. Her story changed appreciably between the two trials and I found it very telling that she conducted her own appeal hearing. In that respect I feel that even a first year law student would have arrived better prepared than she did.

She has totally destroyed her future employment prospects and still doesn't recognise it. In her announcement today that she is not standing in the by-election she said
QUOTE
To those who sent racially abusive, threatening, bullying, derogatory and vulgar remarks - as advised in my video, I will clear my name and I was willing and able to continue for as long as constituents wished for me to do so.
She still does not accept that what she did is wrong.

Posted by: DancingDad Fri, 3 May 2019 - 19:36
Post #1482442

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Fri, 3 May 2019 - 12:21) *
Yes, there are many occupations in which "a little dishonesty" is tolerated, but anyone entering the legal profession knows the likely consequences of doing what she did. It will be a tough lesson--which I'm equally sure she will not learn.

--Churchmouse



Little dishonesty ?

Most of the bosses I've worked for would tolerate something like speeding points.
One said that 3 came with the job, 6 meant be more careful, 9 drive like a nun, 12, plead insanity or hand in your notice.

I think all would have accepted me fighting a speeding charge if they agreed it was iffy.
Would have told me to take the points and not be stupid otherwise.
None would have been very happy with PCOJ, that sort of conviction opens questions about honesty and judgement and whether the person can be trusted at work.
Would you want someone in a position of responsibility who is stupid enough to get in that position ?

Posted by: The Rookie Fri, 3 May 2019 - 19:43
Post #1482446

I’m not sure how she’s intending to clear her name..... but it could be entertaining to watch!

Posted by: ManxRed Tue, 7 May 2019 - 08:48
Post #1483098

QUOTE (jdh @ Thu, 2 May 2019 - 12:00) *
She might get some votes as an independent as long as she doesn't use her own name on the ballot paper.


laugh.gif

Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 12 May 2019 - 17:16
Post #1484556

So she's not running: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-48153535

But her website has been partially updated to reflect the fact that she's not an MP any more:

As Peterborough’s MP, Fiona engaged with local plans for a university in Peterborough, methods for combating fly-tipping, and looked at ways to help the local NHS.

Outside of the political arena, Fiona is an active member of her church and is an avid reader, but she also loves dogs and enjoys spicy food.


As an active member of her church, maybe they can offer her a position in the soup kitchen?

Posted by: ViroBono Sun, 12 May 2019 - 17:25
Post #1484561

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 12 May 2019 - 18:16) *
As an active member of her church, maybe they can offer her a position in the soup kitchen?



Maybe they can offer her some moral guidance?

Posted by: Fredd Sun, 12 May 2019 - 18:14
Post #1484574

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 12 May 2019 - 18:16) *
she also loves dogs and enjoys spicy food.

The porridge must have been particularly distressing for her, then.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)