The Minister for Bankrupting the Country is to be charged with perverting the course of justice, along with his ex-wife. For those that don’t know, Chris Huhne is, or rather was, Minister for Energy and Climate Change , a post first held by King Canute, yes I know he was really only demonstrating to his courtiers that he no control over the weather, but hoi polloi think he was trying to turn the tides back :-).
He is being thus charged because it is alleged that he tried to make his then wife claim she was driving when he was caught speeding and would have got enough points to lose his driving licence, and she agreed.
He is, of course the same idiot who is trying to cover the entire UK with useless windmills, and he is also the one who claimed, during his election propaganda at the last General Election, that family life was very important to him, just before he dumped the aforesaid wife for a woman of dubious sexuality. He is a Lib Dem, I suppose.
He is not a nice man, and we can only hope he is guilty and is found to be so by 12 good men (should that be persons) and true.
Boadicea's Chariot 
let him hang by the testicles until he is dead.
detestable man and very very nasty.
Though somehow I think he will walk away from this, the CPS has been nobbled which is why it has taken so long to get this far. As I keep saying politicians are the real reason for our ills.
Ah, so need for a trial, then.
Sipu the trial will be a sham or thrown out because the powers that be will make it so.
If his wife was driving the car then she had to cross London from a speech she was giving at a speed in excess of 60 mph, an impossible feat at any time, unless you have a police escort.
I’m struggling to understand all of this.
It would appear that you’ve all got your knickers in a knot about some bloke speeding, big deal.
I see that John Terry has had his career ruined today.
If I may, I’d like to add that I probably exceeded the speed limit myself today, and I have no doubt that I used the word ‘black’ at least once.
I’m no fan of either of them but for Pete’s sake get real, this shouldn’t be news let alone a ‘crisis’
Soutie, the point is that the person in question is a Minister of the Crown and, not only did he lie – I mean, come on, he’s a politician, innit – he conspired to pervert the course of justice – an offence which carries a life sentence, as if that’s going to happen.
I don’t care who he is, he should be given a fair trial and not subjected to trial by media.
So, you don’t like his politics, you don’t like his “green” stance, but in the end, it has absolutely no bearing on his guilt or innocence.
Of course the fact that he is a Minister of the Crown makes it necessary to resign if, and I repeat if, he is proven guilty, but since he has resigned anyway that is something of a moot point.
I really cannot abide these witch hunts however much I may dislike someone’s politics.
Sorry FEEG, the above was not directed at you, but I do become quite cross about pre-judging such matters on the evidence we read in the media.
I dislike the man, but I still believe he has a right to a fair trial.
The only, and I do mean only, thing in Huhne’s favour is that he resigned (albeit probably pushed) before he was sacked. Not so with the reprehensible John Terry, who was rightly sacked outright.
OZ
OZ, yes, but I suspect he was pushed, but still, he may well be guilty but I do think that media exposure and pressure has much to do with this. It is wrong in principle.
Soutie: I do not know the person in question, but it is clear he is not being prosecuted for speeding, the speeding violation was in 2003 or thereabouts, he then convinced his wife to lie about it and plead guilty so as to save his license. Then the jerk divorced her and took up with his assistant who was at that time in a lesbian relationship. He presumably was shocked when his ex “dobbed him out” to the authorities five years later.
Hi Soutie, supporter of the potential #1 team if you get it as right against NZ as ‘we’ are getting it wrong against Pakistan. Not going to happen, of course, Strauss and Broad to build an unassailable lead, in my opinion. Just call me a dreamer!
Moving on to your #5. It’s not that difficult for us but I can see why you might be struggling without all the facts. Only my opinion, but I believe Huhne to be an arrogant little tosser who deserves nothing but contempt. He has spent his entire political life adopting the moral high ground and suddenly that ground has crumbled under him.
Nobody cares that his latest driving offence happens to involve speeding. He has admitted that the car in which he was travelling was speeding The point is that he had already served one driving ban and knew that another offence would mean serious trouble, So, it is alleged, he persuaded his wife of the time to lie and to say that she was driving.
Meanwhile, he was, by his own admission, shafting his Press Secretary whilst making public statements about his profound belief in the institution of marriage. And that is where I disagree with Ara in #7.
Let him have his fair trial and be found either guilty or innocent. It will not matter one whit to me. On all the evidence about him that I have seen to date, I believe him to be morally unfit and unworthy to be a Minister of the Crown, whatever any court of law may or may not determine.
I’m with JM. Huhne comes across as a total scumbag, first using his family in his election campaign and then leaving them shortly after for this other woman. Whether he’s guilty on the charge of perverting the course of justice, I don’t know. But his previous actions do not predispose me to think him innocent. If that’s prejudging the issue, then Huhne brought it on himself.
Did I say that Charioteers were not free to express their opinions, Bearsy? What unfounded accusations?
I merely expressed my opinion that media witch hunts are regrettable, whilst reiterating my firm belief that the English legal system, though flawed maybe, still asserts the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, despite opinions in the media to the contrary.
This was the extent of my contrary opinion, except perhaps to express my opinion that he may well be guilty based only on my dislike of the man.
I would still prefer he had a fair trial.
Ah, Mr Mackie.
Regarding your comment above and your disagreement as to his suitability for office and his moral turpitude and his alleged offence of perverting the course of justice, it seems to me that the former was well known to his political masters, but his resignation was very much based on the latter.
In fact Clegg has stated that he would be welcome back should he be cleared of the criminal offence!
I have to agree with your view as to conduct not befitting a Minister of the Crown, but I don’t think this is the issue in question, or is it?
Does this mean that you disagree with me, Bearsy?
I’m actually trying to debate the issue, but not with you.
Anyhoo, whatever, as usual, I will now refrain from further comment and “ship” off to bed.
Goodnight, it was an interesting debate until it wasn’t. 😦
Ara #7:
Look at the last sentence of the post. I did not say he WAS guilty, even though I believe he is quite capable of such chicanery. I said I hoped he was guilty and was found to be so, NOT found guilty whatever the circumstances.
The reason is that as well as being a truly obnoxious man, he is also an extremely dangerous one who, if allowed to continue with his lunatic green policies, will hasten the decline of this country to third world status by an order of magnitude more rapidly than it already is.
Hi FEEG.
No you didn’t say he was guilty. See my #8, but nevertheless his lunatic policies really should not have any bearing on his guilt or innocence of the crime of perverting the course of justice.
I was reading the reports in main Telegraph pages yesterday and the response from those who commented was in the main so vituperous they ended up closing the comments! I suspect they were worried about libel, and couldn’t moderate them speedily enough, so they just gave up.
Afraid trial by press is the norm now as we recently saw with the Stephen Lawrence case. Living close to Kidbrook we hear what the 2 scum bags got up to and I am certain they were guilty as hell, but reading the evidence against them I think there was reasonable doubt as to find them not guilty. Hence if I had been chosen for the jury I would have said not guilty or not proved.
However as I have said before Lawrence was no saint either.
Yes, Rick, I think that you are right with regard to trial by press, but hopefully the jurors will put this to one side and so they should.
What we read in the press, especially the tabloids is not necessarily accurate, and neither is it the full story.
Some years ago, our house was burgled, and the report in the local press was one short paragraph which contained so many errors it was risible. We were not contacted to confirm the facts of the matter by the newspaper in question.