we dont know if she is guilty or not. so there is little to comment about until the case.
|
we dont know if she is guilty or not. so there is little to comment about until the case.
But a little glow of vicarious satisfaction is permitted, yes? ;-)
|
only if she is found guilty - then you can smirk
|
only if she is found guilty - then you can smirk
>>
Sorry, can't wait that long; smirk began this morning when I read it in the paper!
|
|
|
|
We all know that a prosecution has been implemented, but other than that there is nothing we can legally discuss until the case is over.
|
Much as I despise this feminist waste of my tax money, she seemed to get fairly evenly treated back in 2003:
"Ms Harman was banned from driving for seven days and fined £400 in February 2003 for speeding at 99mph on a motorway.
The penalty, which was criticised by motorists' organisations as too lenient, was issued just as it was announced that court fines should be more closely linked to offenders' incomes."
I'm sure the 7 day ban would have cause more cost to subsequent insurance of private motors than the £400. I'd be a bit miffed being banned at 99 on a 70 - 5 or 6 points would surely be more common.
Unless of course she kept a clean licence after the 7 day ban in which case she needs locked up with her ex- (yeah, right) husband.
|
Unless of course she kept a clean licence after the 7 day ban in which case she needs locked up with her ex- (yeah right) husband.
Surely it's Tessa Jowell who has the (yeah right) ex. Nothing I've seen about Hattie suggests her marriage to Jack Dromey is anything other than sound.
|
You are absolutely correct. Apologies to Ms Harman and her husband!
These feminist egoists all seem the same to me these days...
|
|
I wonder if she has put a call in to Mr Loophole yet?
|
|
|
|
Locked.
|
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8447784.stm
Ah well coughed most of the job in the end.
|
"...her Rover 75"
Company car I wonder...? Surely someone on her allowances could afford something a bit better... :-)
|
I see that just touching the car behind you when parking, and causing no damage or injury at all, gets you 3 points and a £350 fine.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8447784.stm
The police and courts are going to be busy.
|
Interesting with regard to the fine in relation to that in this thread:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=80...8
Presumably the fortunate Harperson misses out...:-)
Edited by Stuartli on 08/01/2010 at 15:15
|
|
Sorry Stuart I was in the process of merging and unlocking the original threads.
|
I see that just touching the car behind you when parking and causing no damage ........
It must have caused some damage, albeit slight. Get a few collisions like that to your car and it would soon start to look tatty.
|
|
"A second charge of driving while using a mobile phone was withdrawn."
Hmmm...
|
"A second charge of driving while using a mobile phone was withdrawn." Hmmm...
>>
Hmmm.. too. That would have added three points to her existing nine and......
To be fair ..
Michael Jennings, for the prosecution, told the court: ?She got into her car whilst using her handheld telephone.
?She then started the engine of her car again whilst using a mobile telephone, which then drove forward and she then drove backwards.
?It was when she moved backwards again that she then hit the car which was parked behind her. ?Throughout all of this incident she was using her handheld telephone.?
In defence
Mr Haslam said: ?This is a parking manoeuvre. It takes place in a very short timespan. It takes place at a very slow speed, less than 5mph.
?There is no injury, no damage and no insurance claim by either party in relation to either vehicle.?
|
>> Hmmm...>>
I wonder if she is amongst those who plan to 'retire' at the end of this parliament???
|
>>I wonder if she is amongst those who plan to 'retire' at the end of this parliament???>>
She's been making it pretty clear she's very keen on taking over from Gordon Brown as Party leader. The stuff of nightmares - one disaster to the next....
|
>>It takes place at a very slow speed, less than 5mph.>>
Mobile phone or not, it's probably a good job then she wasn't going at normal road speeds as she still managed to have a prang...:-)
|
Why did they drop the driving with a mobile phone charge? It was clearly the reason she crashed and would have gone a long way to stop others from being as irresponsible as her. As for the idea she was going slowly and was therefore little risk what if someone had walked behind her car while it was going forward and bent to tie their lace? She'd have crushed them into the car behind as she was so busy yapping on her phone.
|
Probably as 'Careless Driving' is deemed to be the more serious offence and prosecution for that covers the lesser offences. See she only got 3 points when it is IIRC a 3 to 6 point offence.
|
|
How many hours of Senior Police/ Senior Prosecution have been taken up - much better chasing crooks and fining Ministers.
|
How many hours of Senior Police/ Senior Prosecution have been taken up - much better chasing crooks and fining Ministers.
senior prosecution solicitors dont chase crooks do they??....come to think of it when was the last time you saw a chief super on the beat. Maybe if the ministers felt the long arm of larry law more often they wouldnt try to get way with half the stuff they do
|
"Ms Harman is pleased that it has been established that this was not a 'hit-and-run' accident as portrayed in some media reports. It was a parking incident and no damage was done."
Yeah I bet she is. She would have got herself a CRO number for that one!
The report further states that there was no damage and no injury. In which case there is no reportable RTC. In which case she couldn't have 'Failed to Stop or Report'.
Nothing happened with the mobile phone.
Yet she pleads to a 'Careless Driving'
So whats it all about then ????????? :-S
The words bargaining and plea come to mind plus some political saving face.
|
|
Copped a plea and an Election that's what happened
|
what made me laugh was she couldnt appear in court because she was in a cabinet meeting
ive heard those rover 75"s called somethings but a blanket box i never have
till now
|
At least Ms Harman wasn't wasting even more public money by using a driver, even though she appeared to be at least on constituency, if not ministerial, business.
The result she's achieved is not significantly better than what you or I could have got, so in that respect the system has been reasonably transparent.
Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't vote for her, either.
But that has nothing to do with motoring and everything to do with a topic that is specifically banned on this site.
|
At least she did get done and didn't weedle out of it...
Only 3 points to go though... then she'll have to get a driver! ;)
|
Am I wrong, or did this poor lady reverse gently into another parked car, doing no damage, get reported by some unpleasant twozzer, and then suffer a fine for driving without due care, all in the glare of publicity?
Am I wrong, or are quite a lot of you expressing pleasure that these things have happened?
And if you have, am I wrong in thinking very little of you?
Tchah!
|
Hang on Lud,
Senior member of the nanny state government, fully paid up member of 'do as I say, not what I do'....bashes someone's car whilst talking on a phone, then doesn't stop and report it properly, then denies it.
So hypocrisy, arrogance and (alleged) untruth all in one hit.
IMO she got what she deserved and was lucky not to get more....;-)
Edited by Westpig on 09/01/2010 at 11:57
|
From the Daily Telegraph today :-
" She has been treated incredibly leniently. If she was my client, I would consider it a fantastic result"
Says a man of considerable experience in these things
Mr Nick Freeman.
|
When I nudge another car's bumper while parking or unparking - I try not to, but it can happen - I sometimes get out to make sure there's no mark. There never is. And I never report an accident under these circumstances. I would be very displeased if I then got a NIP or something, and I imagine most people here, who I imagine behave in much the same way, would sympathise.
I don't want to exaggerate - politicians are fairly thick-skinned after all - but what is it that makes people think it's a good idea to jog the elbows of ministers of the Crown with this sort of crap? It's not as if they didn't have plenty of serious stuff to worry about.
|
- politicians are fairly thick-skinned after all -
A redundant word there, I fancy, beginning with "s" ...
But Lud, don't you recognise that the real offence in most people's eyes is that Ms Harperson (who was involved in government legislation against driving while on the mobile) had her parking graze whilst all the while speaking into one of the pesky instruments... and departed the scene in lordly manner (well, she is the niece of a duke or something, isn't she?).
And, as has been noted, there's a whiff of plea-bargaining about the outcome which gets up the nose.
|
But Lud don't you recognise that the real offence in most people's eyes is that Ms Harperson (who was involved in government legislation against driving while on the mobile) had her parking graze whilst all the while speaking into one of the pesky instruments >>
That's exactly it, Eddie. My son, who is living in London, explained to me that it is the norm to shunt gently back and forth CAREFULLY nudging the cars in front and behind whilst in a tight parking spot. That is why he got rid of the tow-bar that was on the car when he bought it. He wouldn't use a mobile phone whilst doing it, though!
|
That is why he got rid of the tow bar that was on the car when he bought it.
I would have put another on the front to protect both ends. :-)
|
Common sense at last.
Well said Lud
Pat
|
- but what is it that makes people think it's a good idea to jog the elbows of ministers of the Crown with this sort of crap? It's not as if they didn't have plenty of serious stuff to worry about.
For me, it's the lack of humility and high handedness of the woman, followed by a degree of untruth and slipperiness.
If I bump someone's car and they remonstrate with me over it, which let's face it, they have every right to do.......then i'm in the wrong...and there's no reason why i shouldn't aplogise for it. What I wouldn't do is be dismissive and drive off.
Can you imagine Tony Benn dealing with the incident in the same way (to use another politician from the same party)....no....the sort of person he is, would be the one who would get out and apologise and the whole thing would have been defused right from the word go.
To drive off saying"I'm Harriet Harman you know where to get hold of me" is tantamount to saying 'clear off you pleb, i'm too important for all this, unlike you'. That's when they need a bit of come uppance, regardless of whether or not they're a govt minister....because they should make an effort to obey the rules and be contrite when they don't.
|
I agree you have a point there Westpig, if the anti-Harman version of this story is to be taken at face value. But as I am fond of saying, 'you'd have to have been there to know for sure'.
Perhaps Mrs Harman is rude and self-important in a way that Tony Benn isn't. But with our ever-more-tabloid press, and given the unpopularity of a regime past its sell-by date, and given the capacity of some citizens to make a fuss and be self-righteous, might that not be an impression that has been constructed maliciously, at least in part?
Perhaps the lady tried to be apologetic without wasting time. Any way you look at it, though, it's a storm in a teacup.
|
"it's a storm in a teacup"
Only if she wasn't using a mobile phone at the time! I accept that this may have been an embellishment, but I don't remember her denying it.
I admit to some schadenfreude over this, mainly because she appears to be nannyish and prone to kneejerk reactions, so much so that there is a documented 'harman effect'. Here's an example:
mreugenides.blogspot.com/2009/10/case-study-in-cau...l
|
At least Ms Gwyneth Paltrow had the good manners to stop and discuss the matter with the other driver.
tinyurl.com/ycl7yhb
|
Any way you look at it, though, it's a storm in a teacup. >>
Lud, I do not agree. I rather prefer the views expressed in the Telegraph today:
"Harriet Harman avoided losing her licence yesterday after she admitted driving without due care and attention while on her mobile phone. ....
It was her third driving offence in three years and there was speculation that she might lose her licence under the “totting up procedure”, ...
Legal experts said she had got off lightly because she was charged with only one offence, rather than two for causing an accident and driving while on the phone.
Nick Freeman, the lawyer nicknamed “Mr Loophole” for his ability to secure reduced penalties for clients, said: “She has been treated incredibly leniently. If she was my client, I would consider it a fantastic result.” .... "
Also, reported in another paper:
"... The court heard she was given three points for speeding in a 30mph zone in April 2007 and another three points in April 2008 for the same offence.
Miss Harman has motoring convictions dating back to 2003, when she was caught speeding at 99mph and banned for seven days.... "
|
Everyone including the egregious Mr Loophole - not usually regarded as a hero on this site - is conspiring to put the boot into a government minister. Those who admit schadenfreude are at least being honest. And I agree that Mrs Harman has asked for it in this area by making pronouncements on road safety and herself backing the handheld phone ban. However an unholy fuss has been made by some PITA of a citizen over a completely damage-free parking nerf.
I have to say jbif that Mrs Harman's other motoring convictions are for speeding, once at a sporting 99mph but usually just hustling a bit over the limit going from one bit of politicianly drudgery to the next. What's to dislike about that? I had a soft spot for Princess Anne for speeding in her day too.
If only she hadn't connived at banning foxhunting and smoking and hadn't adopted a po-faced line on speeding and so on I would say she's a girl after my own heart. As it is though I can only admit she's a bit clumsy and unlucky in these trivial areas.
Edited by Lud on 09/01/2010 at 19:22
|
"a sporting 99mph"
Hmm. Nothing to do with the fact that 100mph would have got her an instant ban, then..?
Sorry to sound cynical, but I blame the government...
|
Pardon my cynicism.
If the Right Honourable Mrs Harman had stopped, got her backside out of the car and spoken to whoever she had to then "I'm frightfully sorry but I have just backed into your car can we sort this out" would have seen an end to the matter and saved everyone, including herself, an awful lot of aggro. Happens thousands of times every day with no Police intervention.
If there is no damage then surely there is no complaint and therefore no 'Careless Driving'. The phone bit is incidental.
"There is no injury, no damage and no insurance claim by either party in relation to either vehicle."
Damage limitation - "Get yourself round to that car owners house and pay for whatever damage there is." = No insurance claim.
Probably put it on her expenses anyway.
There simply had to be some damage or witness intervention, CCTV??
Something has happened for the Police/CPs to give it a run.
Sorry I cant stand the woman and her cavalier attitude when caught fiddling her expenses sums her up.
Edited by Fullchat on 09/01/2010 at 20:20
|
'Sub judice' eh? Sorry I'm a bit late with this but sub judice described as the following:
'' 1. statutory contempt of court under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which criminalises the publication of material which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the relevant proceedings would be seriously impeded or prejudiced; and
2. common law contempt, which targets any other action which is intended to interfere with the administration of justice, including interfering with pending or imminent court proceedings.
Hardly fits the bill passing a little opinion here. Can you honestly imagine someone being so bothered by our internet forum opinions that the Police should investigate? This is Magistrates court stuff for careless driving not death by dangerous at Crown. And anyway, it's not sub judice, it's been dealt with.
|
And anyway, it's not sub judice, it's been dealt with. >>
woodster:
Yes, now it has. Look at the date of the OP and the date the thread was locked, and the date the thread was re-opened.
Fullchat said:If the Right Honourable Mrs Harman had stopped, got her backside out of the car and spoken to whoever she had to then "I'm frightfully sorry but I have just backed into your car can we sort this out" would have seen an end to the matter and saved everyone, including herself, an awful lot of aggro. Happens thousands of times every day with no Police intervention. >>
Exactly. There was a very good reason this incident got reported initially (look up the papers), and Mrs Harperson-Dromey has pleaded guilty to a lesser offence than the initial alleged complaint of leaving the scene of an incident without giving her particulars to the 3rd party.
Edited by jbif on 09/01/2010 at 21:19
|
... this incident got reported initially (look up the papers), ... >>
One "restrained" initial report was:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6608732/Harr...l
"... A witness was reported to have said that after the accident Miss Harman wound down her window and said: "I'm Harriet Harman, you know where you can get me.''
Metropolitan Police traffic officers arrived and began an investigation. The MP attended a pre-arranged appointment with police officers and gave a statement.
Files were passed to prosecutors on November 9 and in a statement on Thursday the Crown Prosecution Service said: “There is sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute the Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP for the offences of driving without due care and attention and driving whilst using a hand-held mobile telephone in relation to an incident on 3 July 2009 in Peckham,
....
... A spokesman for the MP for Camberwell and Peckham said: "Miss Harman strongly refutes the allegations and will deny the charges."... "
Edited by jbif on 09/01/2010 at 21:28
|
A spokesman for the MP for Camberwell and Peckham said: "Miss Harman strongly refutes the allegations and will deny the charges."... "
So then she pleads guilty.
So the first statement was an untruth then????
Politicians don't you just love em!
|
A spokesman for the MP for Camberwell and Peckham said: "Miss Harman strongly refutes the allegations and will deny the charges."... "
You either refute (disprove) something or you do not, she may however have strongly denied the allegations.
|
Lud,
Mrs Harman should have been intelligent enough to realise that the sanctimonious, pontificating carp that she spouts in her efforts to garner public attention makes her a very tempting target.
Your sympathy is misplaced.
Kevin...
|
|
On the other hand I'd be happy for Tony Benn to bump into me - met him once.
|
Heard Tony Benn speak at the Durham Miners' Gala a couple of times - great to listen to, whether you agree with the politics or not.
I believe he toured with a stage show, just him and his flask of coffee.
Another good listen in a firebrand sort of way is Dennis Skinner.
These men understood oratory, how to work an audience, in a way none of the current crop do.
|
|
Going off topic I suppose, but I watched that prog where a "celebrity" or politician had to stand up in front of a university audience and hold his or her own in discussion, the person who surprised me the most was Bob Monkhouse, he was excellent!
Edited by b308 on 10/01/2010 at 09:50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
