Chris Huhne.

[Digit]

Exit the windmill man!

http://news.sky.com/home/politics/article/16162272

Roy.

 

[chipmunk]

I'm baffled why he was allowed to hang on for so long and indeed why the DPP took so long.

Perverting the course of justice is a serious issue and he should have been forced to fall on his sword before now even if he didn't have the honour to do it himself.

Jon

 

[cambournepete]

There is an alternative viewpoint - that he's not been found guilty of anything, so why should he resign.
The same argument applies to John Terry really.

 

[chipmunk]

That's a fair point I suppose although why his ex-wife would make it up doesn't really pass the common sense test IMHO.

(I have no interest in John Terry's case)
Jon

 

[JakeS]

Chipmunk: He did just have an affair and leave her about fifteen seconds before she made the accusation - she was probably a bit miffed with him!

I wouldn't be surprised if he was guilty, but if she's lying it probably does much more damage to his political career than it does to her.

 

[chipmunk]

Well Jake, I agree on the motivation and I guess we'll find out in due course but I judge that she knew what she was doing.

She's accused of PCJ too and either way it falls I would have thought that she'll almost certainly be found guilty - I would say that she either lied once or twice :wink:

Jon

 

[Digit]

Hades holds no Fury as a woman scorned!

Roy.

 

[henton49er]

There is an alternative viewpoint - that he's not been found guilty of anything, so why should he resign.

Perhaps he is intending to plead guilty, in which case an immediate resignation would be expected.

Mike

 

[wobblycogs]

As far as I can tell the only real evidence the police have is the testimony of the ex-wife that she illegally took the points. As it stands at the minute she's in a no win situation; if she changes her testimony they will prosecute her for something (probably wasting police time) and if she sticks by it she'll be prosecuted for PCJ.

I'm guessing she'll stick by her statement whether it's true or not just to see her ex destroyed.

The more interesting question really is how long will it take for CH to get back into Government after he's convicted? My guess is three years but perhaps I still have a far too rose tinted view of our Government.

 

[Max Power]

Hardly the Crime Of The Century is it. I wonder how many others have done the same thing?
Two dodgy coppers up our way were sacked for selling handed in firearms on. They have just had their pensions reinstated on appeal :roll:

 

[wobblycogs]

I agree it's not even the crime of the year but (assuming he's guilty) CH went out of his way to commit a crime and I don't think that's the sort of person I want looking after the country. Worse, he's enough of an silly person that he got caught doing it!

Pretend for a moment that he's someone you are looking to employ, he turns up at the interview and you find out he's got a driving ban, a conviction for perverting the course of justice and hasn't long gone though a messy divorce because he had an affair. Would you employ that guy?

I think most of us wouldn't employ someone like that without very good reason but somehow it seems it's more forgiveable with politicians.

 

[chipmunk]

Well call me old fashioned but, setting aside minor traffic offences, I'd rather disqualify all convicted offenders from holding public office.

Jon

 

[Digit]

Apparently Clegg has told him that if he was charged he would have to go, we'll see. Let's hope his replacement hasn't got a windmill fetish!

Roy.

 

[Digit]

Sky states that he's done the 'honourable' thing!

Roy.

 

[Losos]

Hades holds no Fury as a woman scorned!

Roy.

I was thinking the same thing Roy :lol: (Are we not allowed to use the 'H' word on here :?: )

 

[Digit]

Let's just hope his successor is more worldly wise, we might see a few less cloud stirrers on our hills.

Roy.