neeeeeeeeeek Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 His wife was allegedly at a conference in London, he was driving home from Stansted airport. The CPS must be quite confident to charge him. I have not seen any details about the location or time of the offence but they must have worked out which way he would have been travelling and at what time, the same for her. Be interesting to see how this pans out. Guilty, but proving it could be tricky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 They have both been charged. But nearly everyone on here seems to have jumped the gun on this. First the court needs to prove his wife wasn't driving (which she claims she was) Second the court needs to prove he was driving (Not neccessarily the case even if his wife wasn't) Thirdly. The court would need to prove a conspiracy. Please indulge me in a little pedantry The 'prosecution' has to prove, not the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 As an earlier post said. It's unlikely the CPS would be bothered, if they didn't have some pretty compelling evidence, especially someone in his position in government! They only have to prove he was driving. That being the case then the conspiracy is obvious. There's some statistic which I can't be bothered to find (I'm sure someone will) that says we're all on CCTV so many dozen times a day (or something like that), they only need one picture which shows him driving, or a few witnesses, and he's doomed. But yes I agree, it does need to be proved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 .........which she claims she was......... ......... You may be forgetting that she was the one that let the cat out of the bag by announcing that someone other than Huhne was driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Did he resign to save face or to save his pension ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Did he resign to save face or to save his pension ? What, you mean it hasn't been brushed under the carpet yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purdy Posted February 3, 2012 Author Share Posted February 3, 2012 You may be forgetting that she was the one that let the cat out of the bag by announcing that someone other than Huhne was driving. Isn't that what they are both claiming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grafikhaus74 Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 What, you mean it hasn't been brushed under the carpet yet? Cynic! Yes, he'll lie low for a bit (like David Laws) and eventually crawl out from under a rock to carry on as normal. In a few years he'll be made a Lord for 'Services to taking Backhanders from the Windmill Industry'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Cynic! Yes, he'll lie low for a bit (like David Laws) and eventually crawl out from under a rock to carry on as normal. In a few years he'll be made a Lord for 'Services to taking Backhanders from the Windmill Industry'. and tax exiled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 and tax exiled Couldn't he just ask Tony Blair who does his tax returns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.