https://twitter.com/reluctantnicko/s...ORcQ:sherlock:
Printable View
No mention of ball tampering I see :biggrin:
Brilliant lol
'Brilliant'?Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
'lol'?
Utterly desperate and pathetic!
No mention of ball tampering from the Honourable Member For the Eighteenth Century - but plenty of mentions of ball tampering from most other observers and commentators, including a good number of Tory spear carriers!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
Who the hell looks at the penny farthing salesman and says I know I’ll vote for him as he best represents me. It’s a bloody joke.
He's no silly mid off I grant you that , it seems once again he has folk in a spin as he is very good at fielding difficult positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1959
Whilst you were responding, Brilliant,lol here are the thoughts of the rump of decency that exists in the Conservative Party today whilst that oddity Rees-Mogg struts his stuff to your amusement!Quote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
At the Commons debate, William Wragg, chair of the Commons’ constitutional affairs committee, said he had written a letter of no confidence in the prime minister and that he would have rebelled if the government had not withdrawn its amendment.
He said: “We have been working in a toxic atmosphere. The parliamentary party bears the scars of misjudgments of leadership. There can be few colleagues on this side of the house, I would contend, who are truly enjoying being members of parliament at the moment. It is utterly depressing to be asked to defend the indefensible. Each time part of us withers.”
I'm starting to think Boris Johnsons days are numbered now.
I think the drip-drip of the fines, the probe into accusations of misleading parliament and the likely poor results in local elections will make Tory MPs act. The issue is that there is no obvious successor.
The Prime Minister of this country is the first to be criminally charged, the first to be referred by a Parliamentary vote to the Committee of Privileges who judge whether an MP has committed contempt of Parliament and you think the biggest issue here is whether the Conservative Party has an obvious successor?Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
No Fuss with TrussTMQuote:
Originally Posted by JamesWales
You misunderstand my point - The issue (in whether Tory MP's work to remove him) is if there is an obvious successor they can rally around. It's down to them ultimately and I think that's the reality of the situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
Something something unt with Jeremy Hunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
He's been criminally charged ?Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
Indubitably, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish
A crime is a deliberate act that causes physical or psychological harm, damage to or loss of property, and is against the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish
Johnson introduced the law under which he was served a fixed penalty notice. He paid the fine but obviously had the chance, like every other individual in the land to protest his innocence in court. He decided not to do so becoming a criminal in the process.
Amazing you have doubt. It can only be because you missed it on the news, surely!
A real bad 'un if ever I saw one. He should be locked up after being tarred and feathered, after having a red hot poker inserted in his aspidistra.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish
I'm not sure, but if the punishment is a fine, then it's not a criminal act - in the legal sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
The act is criminal. The punishment is commensurate to the act. Your response determines the ultimate punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish
So if you don't pay your TV licence you can be fined. If you plead innocence against that fine on whatever basis at some time you will be taken to court. Yo will have the opportunity to explain your innocence. If you are found guilty you have various opportunities to appeal. If you ignore the judgement of the court if you are found guilty then the punishment increases at each step up to the maximum determined by the law you are being tried for.
It is perfectly possible to go to prison for not accepting the punishment for not paying a TV licence. It is equally possible that the UK Prime Minister could be imprisoned if found guilty of his criminal offences if the law he put on the statute book said that it was the ultimate punishment.
The law determines what is a crime. The gravity of the offence and how you react determines the punishment.
Does that make sense?
:hehe: what?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish
For AQM's benefit. If you break the law of the land you commit a crime. In Johnson's case if you pay the Fixed Penalty Notice in the time allotted you don't get a criminal record. If you think that what he did wasn't a criminal act. Pick a law, break it, decide not accept the punishment and see how far you get before getting a criminal record.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tito Fuente
This post is slowly becoming a crime
So, it’s reached the stage where there’s a debate as to whether the UK’s Prime Minister is a criminal or not. I grew up thinking that any Prime Minister needed to be that bit more above the law than us mere mortals because of the importance of the job. Whether Johnson is technically a criminal or not is besides the point, as are arguments about it all being the equivalent of a parking ticket - any Prime Minister should not be breaking laws they introduced.
On the subject of parking tickets,
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nt-Oxford.html
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...white-16514771
And this behind a paywall story.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b...kets-22pchqz70
Plus, at the time he made headlines for a row with his current wife, people spoke of Johnson’s car always being parked outside her house and there always being a stack of unpaid parking tickets on the front dashboard.
But he hasn't been charged. He would have been charged if he refused to pay the fine and gone to a magistrates court.Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
Much as many may like it to be so, he is not a criminal.
He was charged with an offence under the The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elwood Blues
He was offered the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for the offence by payment of a fixed penalty. If he accepted that there was no need for a court appearance to argue his guilt or innocence. His agreement to pay the fine under the fixed penalty notice means he will not have a criminal record.
This shouldn't be this tricky.
He's banged to rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elwood Blues
What shouldn't be this tricky?Quote:
Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
Can't I have a different opinion as to whether a fine is a criminal charge or not? I think the actual charge comes at the next stage if you refuse to pay and then go to the magistrates court. I hav spoken to a couple of people I know who have studied the law and agree with me.
If you have a legal background and can prove me wrong then please do so. I have actually found little on the internet either way.
Apologies,Quote:
Originally Posted by Elwood Blues
I believe you are right.
This article best explains the process. It is the second stage the Single Justice Procedure that triggers the charge.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/p...e-b980036.html
It looks like it was tricky after all!!