And in Blue Corner Lord Taylor v Lady Uddin Red Corner

#2
This extract is hilarious:

Taylor's defence barrister, Mohammed Khamisa QC, said his client's actions had been "clumsy, illogical and stupid, but not a deliberate attempt to lie". Mr Khamisa added: "He is not motivated by money. He is a humble man, a gentle and honest man, with a clear moral compass.


No shit! :laughing2:

His barrister should be on the stage, then there is little difference between an actor and a barrister.
 
Last edited:
#3
BBC News - Lord Taylor guilty of making false expenses claims

Why does he get prosecuted and Lady Uddin is not prosecuted. Both were expense scandals.
In Taylor's case, the CPS clearly thought that there was sufficient evidence to make a case against him, and this has been borne out by the finding. In Uddin's case, the CPS deemed that there was insufficient evidence available to secure a conviction, as voiced publicly by the DPP.

I take it you would rather taxpayers money was used to drag a case through court when there was no realistic chance of conviction, merely to demonstrate a level playing field between blue and red (or should that be white and brown?).
 
#4
In Taylor's case, the CPS clearly thought that there was sufficient evidence to make a case against him, and this has been borne out by the finding. In Uddin's case, the CPS deemed that there was insufficient evidence available to secure a conviction, as voiced publicly by the DPP.

I take it you would rather taxpayers money was used to drag a case through court when there was no realistic chance of conviction, merely to demonstrate a level playing field between blue and red (or should that be white and brown?).
Joe are you frickin colour blind?
She has not yet done a Michael Jackson:-D
 
#8
In Taylor's case, the CPS clearly thought that there was sufficient evidence to make a case against him, and this has been borne out by the finding. In Uddin's case, the CPS deemed that there was insufficient evidence available to secure a conviction, as voiced publicly by the DPP.

I take it you would rather taxpayers money was used to drag a case through court when there was no realistic chance of conviction, merely to demonstrate a level playing field between blue and red (or should that be white and brown?).[/QUOTE]
Three peers to be suspended from Lords over expenses claims | Politics | guardian.co.uk

The colour of the peers was not an issue. There was enough evidence to fine Lady Uddin, and ban her from the Chamber, but not enough evidence for the CPS to prosecute her through the courts. I find that hard to believe given the article in the Guardian (I do hope that quoting from the Guardian is acceptable).
 
#9
trelawney126 said:
The colour of the peers was not an issue. There was enough evidence to fine Lady Uddin, and ban her from the Chamber, but not enough evidence for the CPS to prosecute her through the courts. I find that hard to believe given the article in the Guardian (I do hope that quoting from the Guardian is acceptable).
The requirement in a criminal court is that the accused shall be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty. Civil courts only require for it to be on the balance of probability that someone has done something, which is a much easier test to pass. Parliament make up their own rules, but then again, that is their job. The point with Uddin is that it was difficult to prove that she had not been at the house she was claiming to have been at. I certainly never saw her there, mind you, I never saw her at her London address either. Taylor was a completely different kettle of fish, as he admitted what he had been doing, but claimed that it was okay to falsify claims, as that was the norm.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Current Affairs 13
Shakey Diamond Lil's 38
H The Quarterdeck 12

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts