|
I worked across the corridor from him. What an idiot. Corrupt and arrogant.
|
|
Still seems an unduly harsh punishment and I'd rather we didn't have the expense of boarding him all that time. Surely losing his job and getting a criminal record would have mae the point adequately. Some people do burglary without getting locked up.
|
Maybe they see it as an investment in discouraging others to pervert the course of justice.
He'll be out in 5.
To be fair this was at the top end. Certainly above just trying to avoid naming the driver.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 17 Dec 20 at 13:15
|
|
pour encourager les autres
|
>> pour encourager les autres
>>
I've seen that on here a bit*, but do people really say that in real life?
* Yeah I remember there was a thread about odd sayings.
|
I not heard it said in Giggleswick.
They may say it in France. I’ll ask my new ‘bestie’ Bernard on Saturday. He’s from Nantes.
|
...it is associated with the reference to Admiral Byng, further down the thread....
(He was executed by firing squad for (possibly quite rightly) refusing to fight the French, and was referenced by Voltaire later as being executed "pour encourager les autres")
|
|
I'm sure it is, I was more wondering if people actually speak like that in public.
|
>> I'm sure it is, I was more wondering if people actually speak like that in
>> public.
Boris Johnson.
|
>> ...it is associated with the reference to Admiral Byng, further down the thread....
>>
>> (He was executed by firing squad for (possibly quite rightly) refusing to fight the French,
>> and was referenced by Voltaire later as being executed "pour encourager les autres")
>>
Possibly quite rightly....
I'm not so sure... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng
|
>>
>> I'm not so sure... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng
>>
I can't say I'm inclined to rely on Wiki for an informed opinion, but having just read that I'm not going to change my view.
|
>>do people really say that in real life?
No.
|
>> >>do people really say that in real life?
>>
>> No.
Yes
|
>> Yes
I did think if anyone said yes it might be you, I'm going to guess it's some weird legal world thing.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 18 Dec 20 at 11:10
|
...not really. As above it's familiar to me, and I've used it.
I think it's something I picked up at school. I suspect all use of terminology depends on prior experience/exposure.
|
>> ...not really. As above it's familiar to me, and I've used it.
>>
>> I think it's something I picked up at school. I suspect all use of terminology
>> depends on prior experience/exposure.
>>
Just so I understand, you said it out loud in some work/family/friends situation?
|
...just so you understand, yup.
Why so surprised?
As I say, I suspect all use of terminology depends on prior experience/exposure.
|
|
I'm not surprised, I was asking if people spoke like that in real life.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 18 Dec 20 at 11:11
|
>>....I was asking if people spoke like that in real life.
>>
...do people ask questions in that fashion if they're not surprised?
;-)
(Given that, out of the limited posting population seen on here, three people have either quoted it or alluded to it, I don't think it is that uncommon).
|
Yes I do, out of interest.
It's nothing I've ever come across in the real world at all, so I thought I'd ask.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 18 Dec 20 at 11:11
|
I've never heard it said out loud.
It's one of those pointless phrases which is actually less intuitively understandable then the plain language phrase it replaces.
It seems to move away from any want to communicate clearly though towards what one hesitates to wonder.
|
>>
>> It's one of those pointless phrases which is actually less intuitively understandable then the plain language phrase it replaces.
>>
It's a quotation (from Voltaire). Quotations are often used in this manner, and in the vernacular.
>> It seems to move away from any want to communicate clearly though towards what one
>> hesitates to wonder.
>>
Que?
|
>>Quotations are often used in this manner, and in the vernacular.
Yes they are. And often for similar reasons.
|
>>
>>It seems to move away from any want to communicate clearly though towards what one
>> hesitates to wonder.
I wouldn't say it in a serious conversation, only with humour (irony as some people call it) to someone I know. Otherwise I'd probably say "as a deterrent".
To me however that it does have a meaning a bit beyond that - that the punishment is not only increased as a deterrent, but ridiculously so. If I wanted to make that point shorthand, I might say "Admiral Byng job".
But I have to concede that where communication is important, if it isn't understood then it is the fault of the speaker/writer.
Plus ça change.
|
>>
>> But I have to concede that where communication is important, if it isn't understood then
>> it is the fault of the speaker/writer.
>>
...though it has been used/referred to on at least four previous occasions on here ;-)
|
I'm confused why you continue to use the phrase "in the real world", as if myself, Bromp and Manatee are somehow otherworldly manifestations.
Surely, "It's nothing I've come across" (which rather plays to my view on usage being "learnt") would be enough?
|
>> I'm confused why you continue to use the phrase "in the real world", as if
>> myself, Bromp and Manatee are somehow otherworldly manifestations.
>>
>> Surely, "It's nothing I've come across" (which rather plays to my view on usage being
>> "learnt") would be enough?
Read it as 'not online' if that helps.
|
>>as if myself, Bromp and Manatee are somehow otherworldly manifestations.
Well... I didn't like to say anything, but........
|
|
Although, the posting population here is hardly representative of the country as a whole... While I’m aware of the phrase of course - it’s simply a quote from Voltaire - I have never used it nor heard it used in speech anywhere in real life. In modern French I suspect you’d be far more likely to use the phrase ‘pour décourager les autres’ anyway...
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 18 Dec 20 at 11:11
|
|
Modern French is so passé in comparison to a Voltaire quotation, though, Peter.
|
Best quote ever from Minder. Arthur & Tel are in a cheap hotel in Calais trying to book a room;
"'Ere, Tel, what's French for en suite?".
|
>>While I’m aware of the phrase of course
"Whilst".
Ever here to help.
|
>> >>While I’m aware of the phrase of course
>>
>> "Whilst".
>>
>> Ever here to help.
Likewise
"It had 8.5" tyres and now it has 10" tyres on the same wheel. The 10" refers to it's outer diameter, not the size of hub that it fits."
"its"
|
|
I picked it up from reading WW2 history books I suppose. I've certainly heard it used in work (not recently maybe !) in the bad old days of sackings.
|
>>"its"
I b***** hate that one. I am forever getting it wrong. It's not like I don't know the rule, and I correct myself so many times, but still they get through.
I need to scratch it on my eyeballs.
|
>> I need to scratch it on my eyeballs.
But then, how would you get it of?
|
Also yes to pour encourager. But really between Mrs C and I only, and we tend to shorten it to the first two words if we're going to use it.
We might be discussing what seems to be an extreme punishment in the news for something or other, and say something like "I suppose it's pour encourager, all that".
We are probably bad people. We also use "post hoc ergo propter hoc", but again as in, "I reckon that's a bit of post hoc, what do you reckon".
I think we use "post hoc" because of the West Wing episode, to be fair. Here's the 2 minute clip in case some benighted soul hasn't spent most of their lives lapping up The West Wing, over and over and over again.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsI36TzIikY
Last edited by: Crankcase on Fri 18 Dec 20 at 13:48
|
>> I think we use "post hoc" because of the West Wing episode, to be fair.
>> Here's the 2 minute clip in case some benighted soul hasn't spent most of their
>> lives lapping up The West Wing, over and over and over again.
>>
>>
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsI36TzIikY
>>
I enjoyed that. I have never seen much of The West Wing, perhaps I should have another try.
|
It's a curate's egg, so you may have found a dreary episode. They do take your attention to work out what's going on sometimes. but overall, wondrous stuff.
You really do need to watch them sequentially though, series and episodes.
I envy you if you have yet to discover the joys.
|
|
Possibly my favourite American TV series, some of the dialogue is brilliant and many of the issues persist today. I agree that it needs to be watched, it is not something that can be fully appreciated whilst multi-tasking a mobile etc ! It is a slow burner but worth persevering with.
|
I really enjoyed it the first time it came out and for quite a while later. I rewatched it a couple of years, I think I managed 5 minutes.
Perhaps it was me or it was just of it's day and it aged badly.
|
>> Perhaps it was me or it was just of it's day and it aged badly.
"its".
|
>> Perhaps it was me or it was just of it's day and it aged badly.
>>
No perhaps about it.
It's definitely you.
|
>>Still seems an unduly harsh punishment
Perverting the course of Justice is extremely serious - a lot more serious than housebreaking!
|
>> >>Still seems an unduly harsh punishment
>>
>> Perverting the course of Justice is extremely serious - a lot more serious than housebreaking!
Seemingly it is. And of course helping somebody get away with something should be no less serious than doing it yourself.
But when you think about it, committing burglary - any crime in fact - and trying to get away with it is PTCOJ. And that is all he was doing. It just happened to involve the justice system itself.
|
As a punishment for speeding it is harsh. As a punishment for corrupting a system which must remain trusted in order to enforce the law, then not so much.
Though I'd have hoped that a more appropriate punishment could have been found. Something involving hard work and loads of inconvenience, embarrassment and disruption whilst still living at his own expense.
|
>>When you think about it, committing burglary - any crime in fact - and
>> trying to get away with it is PTCOJ. And that is all he was doing.
>> It just happened to involve the justice system itself.
Except in the most egregious cases, for example tampering with witnesses, trying to get away with it is not PCOJ. Even pleading not guilty and stringing out the most improbable tale is not treated as PCOJ or perjury. The sentencing judge will likely treat brazen cock and bullery as aggravating and add time for it.
It would be contrary to the interest off justice - think the chilling effect on the innocent - to prosecute for a failed defence in anything other than extreme circumstances.
In this case it seems, given his role on national committees etc, that the defendant wasn't just a clerk - he had a senior role. Jail for more than a month or two was inevitable; not least 'pour encourager les autres'
The narrative suggests his guilty plea was late which won't help either.
|
Of course Bromp., nobody expects a defendant pleading not guilty to be done for perjury/PTCOJ if they are found guilty. But they have in effect been found guilty of lying except for those cases that go on technicalities.
I can also see why tampering with the process itself that is supposed to elicit the truth is a step beyond. The offence was clearly aggravated by him being part of that machinery, and no doubt the sentence was meant to reflect that.
Yes I'm a bit wrong, but he's still a berk not a career criminal and you'd be hard pressed to find a victim (I'll concede to your argument now on that point to save you typing it).
|
Any justice system needs to maintain a reputation for impartiality, fairness, etc.
Taking money to alter the records of those who would oherwise be convictered is corrupt. Using a position of trust to benefit personally is not only corrupt, but undermines public trust the law needs to operate effectively.
As with most sentencing we need to separate the the actions from the impact - eg:
- drunk driving is punished normally by fines and a ban. The same action resulting in a death usually carries a custodial sentence
- minor shoplifting by a member of the public - small fine, criminal record. Te same action by a police officer leads to dismissal
As a warning to others the sentence is probably justified!
|
>> As a warning to others the sentence is probably justified!
Admiral Byng job, definitely.
|
>> Of course Bromp., nobody expects a defendant pleading not guilty to be done for perjury/PTCOJ
>> if they are found guilty. But they have in effect been found guilty of lying
>> except for those cases that go on technicalities.
>>
>>
>>
That's an interesting one. In the case of a "Not guilty" verdict, have the police been found guilty of lying?
|
>> That's an interesting one. In the case of a "Not guilty" verdict, have the police
>> been found guilty of lying?
>>
I wondered why the police weren't prosecuted for lying in this case...
www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/police-accused-driver-using-mobile-3244036
and I am sure that there are other similar cases.
|
>>and I am sure that there are other similar cases.
Indeed, from the same article about the same man doing the same thing...
"Russell, who works for phone firm EE, was also accused of using a mobile while driving 11 years ago."
Gosh, what a coincidence. I don't think.
|
>> "Russell, who works for phone firm EE, was also accused of using a mobile while
>> driving 11 years ago."
Jeez, is it 11 years since using a hand held phone was a specific offence?
Probably yes, it was some time before I left the service of HMG when the H&S folks were (rightly) focussing on the issue.
|
From the RAC....
"Mobile phone driving laws were first introduced in December 2003, and from 2007 drivers incurred three penalty points on their licence and a fine (£60 at first, then £100 from 2013)."
|
Some times it is wiser to pay & take the points - R.P.
