>>>I assume you were not in the public gallery for both trials.............
Oh come on Bromp... a cheap shot. Of course I wasn't there but I have read carefully and understood the Judge's summary you linked which sets out the basis for his decisions... I'm not working on Daily Mail headlines!
>>> she was in a chaotic situation; read the account of any new MP. More than usual busy job/pressured life scenario... She'd also had a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis...
Even if you accept those circumstances as a reason for making a "mistake" as to who was driving they are absolutely no excuse to attempt to pervert the course of justice once you know a "mistake" has been made. It is very likely she has been aware of that "mistake" for 18mths now, and the court is convinced she has be totally aware for the past 16mths. Plenty of time for a good christian MP with a solicitors background to set things straight.
>>>When she sent the NIP home her brother appears to have accepted he was the driver. The Judge finds she was not party to a conspiracy until September 2017...
Well actually the brother didn't put himself down as the driver... he filled it in as if a Russian lodger they'd had in their shared house was the driver... a guy who was in Russia at the time.
Yes whilst it couldn't be proved she was party to the incorrect completion of the NIP upon receipt it was established by 20th Sept 2017 she knew this was being taken further and the driver information was in doubt. It was established that by 2nd Nov she knew absolutely the provided driver information was false and as you say by 2nd Jan 2018 it was established she and her brother were colluding to cover up the offence.
Some of her defence claims are beyond belief...
Such that when she received the NIP showing the offence to be in Thorney late one evening (a small village north of Peterborough) she said she knew it wasn't her driving at that time so passed the NIP to her mother's house for "the driver" to fill in. Yet she recived that NIP just 9 days after having a meeting late that evening with her Campaign and Comms manager... who lived in Thorney about a mile from the camera.
Cell tower data showed the two phones associated with her confirmed their presence around the time and location of the offence.... yet when questioned she claimed she no longer had those phones due to receiving racist calls on them... well how convenient.
Truth is she probably knew she was the driver when she received the NIP and her defence since then has just been constant lies and attempts at confusion to escape the consequences.
Re getting her out of her MPs job... yep indeed as Bromp says the whole appeal process has to be gone through before the Recall of MPs process can be started. Obvious why she'd appeal as it keeps the salary flowing for a good while longer. Particularly as the process to remove her relies on 10% of the Peterborough electorate to bother to sign the petition. Folks are quite happy to grumble about her in the street... but actually signing might be a different matter and she could survive due to apathy.
|
