The UK Babe Channels Forum

Peterborough MP Fiona Onasanya jailed for three months

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

Good! now kick her out of parliament.

(24-01-2019 14:27 )HannahsPet Wrote: [ -> ]So Alec Salmond been arrested if its for sexual harrasment he is guilty the fucker could never take NO for an Answer

He was bloody good in Taggart though.

(29-01-2019 15:16 )circles_o_o_o Wrote: [ -> ]Peterborough MP Fiona Onasanya jailed for three months

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

The joke of it all apart from the overly-lenient 3 month (reduced to only 6 weeks with good behaviour) sentence that ex-MP Fiona Onasanya received is that her accomplice who was her brother Festus got the larger 10 month sentence.So basically in a case where Fiona was caught speeding but instead of admitting guilt & taking the rap (a few penalty points & a fine) she colluded with her brother Festus that he be the driver instead & where they were both found to be guilty lying.The Law (particularly the judiciary) can often be a joke but to hand out a heavier sentence to the brother Festus (the accomplice) whilst his sister Fiona who committed the actual crime received a much lighter sentence is a joke.

Regarding Parliamentary Rules if an MP receives a prison sentence of longer than 1 year they can no longer stand as MP less than 1 year then they can resume their role when they are released.I've heard rumours that although Labour expelled Fiona from the party when the court-case was pending she expects to resume her role as MP once released.Surely her Peterborough constituency deserve a better representative than a convicted criminal who tried to cover their tracks by lying.

Hopefully there will be a General election before she is released

Her brother got longer as he had 3 guilty pleas to be sentenced for. The Labour Party (she was expelled by them) have today said she should do the honorable thing and resign. It also seems likely that they will try to organise her recall by getting 10% of her constituents to say they want an election. A by-election would then have to be held

^Aren't there different rules for any lords who are sentenced?

Would they succeed in getting the 10% that is required? And what about the 15 MP's who voted down Yvette cooper's amendment last ight should they be forced to resign as well?

(30-01-2019 11:57 )babelover48 Wrote: [ -> ]And what about the 15 MP's who voted down Yvette cooper's amendment last ight should they be forced to resign as well?

I do sometimes wonder about you mate. Perhaps you could explain to a wider audience why this little nugget even entered your thought process

(30-01-2019 11:57 )babelover48 Wrote: [ -> ]And what about the 15 MP's who voted down Yvette cooper's amendment last ight should they be forced to resign as well?

Do tell us what criminal offence they've been convicted of?

(24-01-2019 21:24 )southsidestu Wrote: [ -> ]It is important to remember that whilst many of the charges may be thrown out or fail to reach a guilty verdict that the verdict of NOT GUILTY does not mean innocent, it means that the court thinks you have committed the crime but does not have sufficient evidence to find you guilty.

...err ,no ? It means there is reasonable doubt of guilt.
It does not necessarily mean there is a presumption of guilt but a lack of evidence to prove guilt.

The uniquely Scottish verdict of "Not Proven" is usually interpreted to mean that the jury/judge may be morally convinced that the accused is guilty, but that they still think there is insufficient evidence to convict / the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The legal effect of a "Not Proven" verdict is the same as a "Not Guilty" - ie acquittal.
Arguably it tends to leave more of a residue of suspicion against the accused because "Not Proven" is often not viewed as being as firm a declaration of innocence of the accused as "Not Guilty", and some people see this is as positive, because they argue it doesn't declare innocence in the same way as "Not Guilty" when there is still a strong suspicion of guilt;
others see it as being negative because of the lack of closure it gives for both sides : negative from the accused point of view in that it can mean "innocent" people can still have the stigma of the charges because of not being found definitively "Not Guilty" ; negative from the victim's point of view in that they see "guilty" people being acquitted when otherwise they feel they might have been convicted if there'd only been two verdicts available.

Some view that the "Not Proven" verdict gives juries an "easy way out" , and certainly rape counselling organisations cite it as disproportionately used in prosecutions of rape in Scotland and want it to be abolished because of the lack of closure it provides for victims and they believe it means more guilty people are being set free; often because the Scottish requirement for "corroboration" prevents a "Guilty" verdict being reached - ie. because corroboration means a conviction can't be secured purely on testimony of the victim and in sex offence cases there's much less chance of witnesses.
There have been calls/ attempts made to get rid of "Not Proven" verdicts and the "corroboration requirement" but they have so far not succeeded.