'Juries need to be researched' following collapse of Vicky Pryce trial

Daily Echo: Vicky Pryce Vicky Pryce

A retired lord chief justice and a former director of public prosecutions (DPP) have called for greater research into juries following the collapse of the Vicky Pryce trial.

The ex-wife of former minister Chris Huhne faces a retrial after a jury described as suffering ''absolutely fundamental deficits in understanding'' failed to reach a verdict in her case.

Pryce, 60, will stand trial again for perverting the course of justice as early as next week after the jury at Southwark Crown Court was discharged after saying it was ''highly unlikely'' it would reach even a majority verdict.

Former DPP Lord Macdonald of River Glaven told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: ''We perhaps ought to allow a bit more access to jury reasoning than we do.

''I think it is impossible for researchers to conduct any kind of examination at any time into what has gone on in jury rooms. In other jurisdictions under controlled conditions researchers are allowed to question jurors, to come to some conclusions about the way they are deliberating and how the process works.

''If you have a better understanding of that then perhaps it's easier to frame directions to juries that they will follow and understand.

''I don't believe this is a general problem but I do think we should allow a bit more research into the way juries go about their tasks.''

Former lord chief justice Lord Woolf told Today: ''I wouldn't rush into doing anything, I would think about it. If there was anything that might help us to be reassured about the jury, Lord Macdonald's put his finger on it.

''Some very carefully organised, responsible research may be a good thing, but it would have to be treated with great care.''

The jury trying Pryce submitted a series of 10 questions to the judge during their deliberations.

Mr Justice Sweeney said in 30 years he had never seen a situation like it after being presented with the list of questions after jurors spent nearly 14 hours considering the case.

They included: ''Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it, either from the prosecution or defence?''

Discussing a possible solution, the judge said: ''Quite apart from my concern as to the absolutely fundamental deficits in understanding which the questions demonstrate, I wonder, given that it is actually all there and has been there the whole time, the extent to which anything said by me is going to be capable of getting them back on track again.

''In well over 30 years of criminal trial I have never come across this at this stage, never.''

Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC said the jury of eight women and four men did not appear to have ''truly understood'' or ''sufficiently grasped'' its task.

Pryce, 60, of Crescent Grove, Clapham, south London, faces a retrial. Former cabinet minister Huhne, who changed his plea to guilty on the first day of a joint trial with Pryce, will not be sentenced until the retrial is complete, the court heard.

During the trial at Southwark Crown Court, Pryce claimed a defence of marital coercion, claiming Huhne forced her to take speeding points for him nearly a decade ago, in 2003.

He was caught speeding on his way back from Stansted Airport and thought he would lose his licence, threatening his chances of being nominated to run as the Lib Dem candidate for Eastleigh.

He went on to win the seat - despite being banned from driving that year anyway for another offence - but resigned as an MP after his change of plea.

The questions asked by the jury

Question 1:

You have defined the defence of maritial coercion at page 5 and also explained what does not fall within the definition by way of examples.

Please expand upond the definition (specifically "will was overbourne"), provide examples of what may fall within the defence and does this defence require violence of physical threats?

Question 2:

In the scenario where the defendent may be guilty but there is not evidence provided by the prosecution at the material time of when she signed the NIP to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt, what should the verdict be = not guilty or unable/unsafe to provide a verdict?

Question 3:

If there is a debatable evidence supporting the prosecution's case, can inferences be drawn to arrive at a verdict? If so, inferences/speculation on the full evidence or only where you have directed us to do so (eg. circumstantial evidence, lies, failure by VP to mention facts to the police).

Question 4:

Can you define what is reasonable doubt?

Question 5:

Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it, either from prosecution or defence?

Question 6:

Can we infer anything from the fact that the defence didn't bring witnesses from the time of the offence., such as au pair, neighbours?

Question 7:

Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?

Question 8:

Can we speculate about the events at the time VP signed the form or what was in her mind at that time?

Question 9:

Your Honour, the jury is considering the facts provided but have continued to ask the questions raised by the police. Given the case has come to court without answers to the police's questions, please advise on which facts in the bundle the jury shall consider to determine a not guilty or guilty verdict.

Question 10:

Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling that she had no choice i.e. she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows and he had ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:15am Thu 21 Feb 13

southy says...

A jury should only come to a guilty verdict base on the facts that the prosecution presents, that can not be explained by the defence, the prosecution must prove there case, beyond reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this then it must return a not guily verdict.

Maybe there should be a time limit on a jury, base on how long the case lasts, if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned.
A jury should only come to a guilty verdict base on the facts that the prosecution presents, that can not be explained by the defence, the prosecution must prove there case, beyond reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this then it must return a not guily verdict. Maybe there should be a time limit on a jury, base on how long the case lasts, if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned. southy
  • Score: 0

11:19am Thu 21 Feb 13

Subject48 says...

Cringe... Anyone else see a trend without being totaly sexist ?
Cringe... Anyone else see a trend without being totaly sexist ? Subject48
  • Score: 0

11:21am Thu 21 Feb 13

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
A jury should only come to a guilty verdict base on the facts that the prosecution presents, that can not be explained by the defence, the prosecution must prove there case, beyond reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this then it must return a not guily verdict.

Maybe there should be a time limit on a jury, base on how long the case lasts, if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned.
''.if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned.'' What? just because they cannot decide should not mean a verdict of not guilty is automatically given. Each cases have their own complex information to try and digest.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: A jury should only come to a guilty verdict base on the facts that the prosecution presents, that can not be explained by the defence, the prosecution must prove there case, beyond reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this then it must return a not guily verdict. Maybe there should be a time limit on a jury, base on how long the case lasts, if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned.[/p][/quote]''.if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned.'' What? just because they cannot decide should not mean a verdict of not guilty is automatically given. Each cases have their own complex information to try and digest. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

11:23am Thu 21 Feb 13

Tenderhearts wife says...

I cannot belive that this saga is still ongoing, where did they find these people? Did they mistakenly think that if they asked these questions that they would look inteligent? if so - big fail.Surely at least one of the twelve could have had common sense , enough to advise the spokes person to not embarress themselves in asking the questions. have I paid for this shamble with my hard earned taxes?Who cares if she did or didnt take the points willingly. Stop wasting taxpayers money on this freak show.
I cannot belive that this saga is still ongoing, where did they find these people? Did they mistakenly think that if they asked these questions that they would look inteligent? if so - big fail.Surely at least one of the twelve could have had common sense , enough to advise the spokes person to not embarress themselves in asking the questions. have I paid for this shamble with my hard earned taxes?Who cares if she did or didnt take the points willingly. Stop wasting taxpayers money on this freak show. Tenderhearts wife
  • Score: 0

11:43am Thu 21 Feb 13

Geoff Siddall says...

Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC said the jury of eight women and four men did not appear to have ''truly understood'' or ''sufficiently grasped'' its task.

Maybe the Prosecutor and the Judge simply failed to make it clear to the jury in the first place.
Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC said the jury of eight women and four men did not appear to have ''truly understood'' or ''sufficiently grasped'' its task. Maybe the Prosecutor and the Judge simply failed to make it clear to the jury in the first place. Geoff Siddall
  • Score: 0

11:51am Thu 21 Feb 13

userds5050 says...

Geoff Siddall wrote:
Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC said the jury of eight women and four men did not appear to have ''truly understood'' or ''sufficiently grasped'' its task.

Maybe the Prosecutor and the Judge simply failed to make it clear to the jury in the first place.
Did you read the questions they put to the judge?
[quote][p][bold]Geoff Siddall[/bold] wrote: Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC said the jury of eight women and four men did not appear to have ''truly understood'' or ''sufficiently grasped'' its task. Maybe the Prosecutor and the Judge simply failed to make it clear to the jury in the first place.[/p][/quote]Did you read the questions they put to the judge? userds5050
  • Score: 0

11:52am Thu 21 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
A jury should only come to a guilty verdict base on the facts that the prosecution presents, that can not be explained by the defence, the prosecution must prove there case, beyond reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this then it must return a not guily verdict.

Maybe there should be a time limit on a jury, base on how long the case lasts, if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned.
How is that different to what's happened? The jury failed to reach a verdict, the judge called time on it, and so Vicky Price, by default, remains not guilty. Are you suggesting that in such cases there should not be a retrial and that charges should be dropped?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: A jury should only come to a guilty verdict base on the facts that the prosecution presents, that can not be explained by the defence, the prosecution must prove there case, beyond reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this then it must return a not guily verdict. Maybe there should be a time limit on a jury, base on how long the case lasts, if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned.[/p][/quote]How is that different to what's happened? The jury failed to reach a verdict, the judge called time on it, and so Vicky Price, by default, remains not guilty. Are you suggesting that in such cases there should not be a retrial and that charges should be dropped? Stephen J
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Thu 21 Feb 13

userds5050 says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
A jury should only come to a guilty verdict base on the facts that the prosecution presents, that can not be explained by the defence, the prosecution must prove there case, beyond reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this then it must return a not guily verdict.

Maybe there should be a time limit on a jury, base on how long the case lasts, if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned.
How is that different to what's happened? The jury failed to reach a verdict, the judge called time on it, and so Vicky Price, by default, remains not guilty. Are you suggesting that in such cases there should not be a retrial and that charges should be dropped?
Yes. What happens if the next jury fails to reach a verdict? Ms Price can't remain on trial indefinitely. What isninteresting is Chris Huhne won't be sentenced until after the trial. Him getting sent down a couple of days before the by election wouldn't have looked good for the wobbling jellies.
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: A jury should only come to a guilty verdict base on the facts that the prosecution presents, that can not be explained by the defence, the prosecution must prove there case, beyond reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this then it must return a not guily verdict. Maybe there should be a time limit on a jury, base on how long the case lasts, if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned.[/p][/quote]How is that different to what's happened? The jury failed to reach a verdict, the judge called time on it, and so Vicky Price, by default, remains not guilty. Are you suggesting that in such cases there should not be a retrial and that charges should be dropped?[/p][/quote]Yes. What happens if the next jury fails to reach a verdict? Ms Price can't remain on trial indefinitely. What isninteresting is Chris Huhne won't be sentenced until after the trial. Him getting sent down a couple of days before the by election wouldn't have looked good for the wobbling jellies. userds5050
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Thu 21 Feb 13

freefinker says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
A jury should only come to a guilty verdict base on the facts that the prosecution presents, that can not be explained by the defence, the prosecution must prove there case, beyond reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this then it must return a not guily verdict.

Maybe there should be a time limit on a jury, base on how long the case lasts, if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned.
How is that different to what's happened? The jury failed to reach a verdict, the judge called time on it, and so Vicky Price, by default, remains not guilty. Are you suggesting that in such cases there should not be a retrial and that charges should be dropped?
.. technically, that is not so. Innocent until proved guilty. That does not mean ‘not guilty’, which is a verdict that can only be reached by magistrates, judges and juries.

But yes, what southy is suggesting is quite daft.
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: A jury should only come to a guilty verdict base on the facts that the prosecution presents, that can not be explained by the defence, the prosecution must prove there case, beyond reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this then it must return a not guily verdict. Maybe there should be a time limit on a jury, base on how long the case lasts, if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned.[/p][/quote]How is that different to what's happened? The jury failed to reach a verdict, the judge called time on it, and so Vicky Price, by default, remains not guilty. Are you suggesting that in such cases there should not be a retrial and that charges should be dropped?[/p][/quote].. technically, that is not so. Innocent until proved guilty. That does not mean ‘not guilty’, which is a verdict that can only be reached by magistrates, judges and juries. But yes, what southy is suggesting is quite daft. freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:16pm Thu 21 Feb 13

seven777. says...

Surely if she fraudulently took the points she is guilty of perverting the course of justice. The reasons /mitigating circumstances should be taken into account by the judge during sentencing instead of wasting tax payers money on a retrial.
Surely if she fraudulently took the points she is guilty of perverting the course of justice. The reasons /mitigating circumstances should be taken into account by the judge during sentencing instead of wasting tax payers money on a retrial. seven777.
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

freefinker wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
A jury should only come to a guilty verdict base on the facts that the prosecution presents, that can not be explained by the defence, the prosecution must prove there case, beyond reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this then it must return a not guily verdict.

Maybe there should be a time limit on a jury, base on how long the case lasts, if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned.
How is that different to what's happened? The jury failed to reach a verdict, the judge called time on it, and so Vicky Price, by default, remains not guilty. Are you suggesting that in such cases there should not be a retrial and that charges should be dropped?
.. technically, that is not so. Innocent until proved guilty. That does not mean ‘not guilty’, which is a verdict that can only be reached by magistrates, judges and juries.

But yes, what southy is suggesting is quite daft.
Quite right. Thanks for the clarification. You never know, come the Independent Reformed True Socialist People's Democratic Republic, the judges might welcome time limited trials when they're all on £40k max.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: A jury should only come to a guilty verdict base on the facts that the prosecution presents, that can not be explained by the defence, the prosecution must prove there case, beyond reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this then it must return a not guily verdict. Maybe there should be a time limit on a jury, base on how long the case lasts, if a jury fails to come up with a verdict with in that time period, then a not guilty verdict must be returned.[/p][/quote]How is that different to what's happened? The jury failed to reach a verdict, the judge called time on it, and so Vicky Price, by default, remains not guilty. Are you suggesting that in such cases there should not be a retrial and that charges should be dropped?[/p][/quote].. technically, that is not so. Innocent until proved guilty. That does not mean ‘not guilty’, which is a verdict that can only be reached by magistrates, judges and juries. But yes, what southy is suggesting is quite daft.[/p][/quote]Quite right. Thanks for the clarification. You never know, come the Independent Reformed True Socialist People's Democratic Republic, the judges might welcome time limited trials when they're all on £40k max. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Thu 21 Feb 13

userds5050 says...

seven777. wrote:
Surely if she fraudulently took the points she is guilty of perverting the course of justice. The reasons /mitigating circumstances should be taken into account by the judge during sentencing instead of wasting tax payers money on a retrial.
I think Ms Price is thankful you weren't on the jury.
[quote][p][bold]seven777.[/bold] wrote: Surely if she fraudulently took the points she is guilty of perverting the course of justice. The reasons /mitigating circumstances should be taken into account by the judge during sentencing instead of wasting tax payers money on a retrial.[/p][/quote]I think Ms Price is thankful you weren't on the jury. userds5050
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Thu 21 Feb 13

sass says...

Lock up the jury until they do come to an agreement, however long it takes!
Lock up the jury until they do come to an agreement, however long it takes! sass
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Donnyb says...

It is extremely worrying that the our judicial system relies on 12 members of the general public whose only qualification is to simply turn up. What were they doing during the trial, colouring in the dot-to-dots. Surely a simple Q&A about basic jury responsibility should weed out the crayon artists and get a modicum of intellect in the pool of potential jurists.
It is extremely worrying that the our judicial system relies on 12 members of the general public whose only qualification is to simply turn up. What were they doing during the trial, colouring in the dot-to-dots. Surely a simple Q&A about basic jury responsibility should weed out the crayon artists and get a modicum of intellect in the pool of potential jurists. Donnyb
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Inform Al says...

In my opinion the jury service is an excellent idea and must never be allowed to be done away with. It's easy for the legal lot to denegrate juries who come up with verdicts, or none, that they do not agree with. But that is the reason for trial by peers. I have been more concerned in recent years about the suitability of the judges and perhaps it is they that should be researched, some of their sentencing has been ridiculous and has shown that they do not comprehend the trauma suffered by victims of crime.
In my opinion the jury service is an excellent idea and must never be allowed to be done away with. It's easy for the legal lot to denegrate juries who come up with verdicts, or none, that they do not agree with. But that is the reason for trial by peers. I have been more concerned in recent years about the suitability of the judges and perhaps it is they that should be researched, some of their sentencing has been ridiculous and has shown that they do not comprehend the trauma suffered by victims of crime. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Thu 21 Feb 13

SotonLad says...

I note that the Daily Mail had to make a point about there only being 2 white people in the jury. They can't help themselves!
I note that the Daily Mail had to make a point about there only being 2 white people in the jury. They can't help themselves! SotonLad
  • Score: 0

4:19pm Thu 21 Feb 13

eurogordi says...

Thankfully I am exempt from jury duty but I would not be happy deciding someone's fate without having received proper training. After all, would you expect an untrained surgeon to carry out hospital surgery?

What concerns me most of all though it the cost of this case to the tax payer? Will Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce be offering compensation to the ordinary people?
Thankfully I am exempt from jury duty but I would not be happy deciding someone's fate without having received proper training. After all, would you expect an untrained surgeon to carry out hospital surgery? What concerns me most of all though it the cost of this case to the tax payer? Will Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce be offering compensation to the ordinary people? eurogordi
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Inform Al says...

eurogordi wrote:
Thankfully I am exempt from jury duty but I would not be happy deciding someone's fate without having received proper training. After all, would you expect an untrained surgeon to carry out hospital surgery?

What concerns me most of all though it the cost of this case to the tax payer? Will Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce be offering compensation to the ordinary people?
I have done jury service and thought at the time that all was more than adequately explained to us. The only fault I found was the CPS who seemed totally clueless and at least one of the defendents should never have been put before the court at all.
[quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: Thankfully I am exempt from jury duty but I would not be happy deciding someone's fate without having received proper training. After all, would you expect an untrained surgeon to carry out hospital surgery? What concerns me most of all though it the cost of this case to the tax payer? Will Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce be offering compensation to the ordinary people?[/p][/quote]I have done jury service and thought at the time that all was more than adequately explained to us. The only fault I found was the CPS who seemed totally clueless and at least one of the defendents should never have been put before the court at all. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Thu 21 Feb 13

SotonLad says...

eurogordi wrote:
Thankfully I am exempt from jury duty but I would not be happy deciding someone's fate without having received proper training. After all, would you expect an untrained surgeon to carry out hospital surgery?

What concerns me most of all though it the cost of this case to the tax payer? Will Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce be offering compensation to the ordinary people?
Why should they reimburse us? It's the fault of the thick stupid jury that caused the case to go to a retrial.
[quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: Thankfully I am exempt from jury duty but I would not be happy deciding someone's fate without having received proper training. After all, would you expect an untrained surgeon to carry out hospital surgery? What concerns me most of all though it the cost of this case to the tax payer? Will Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce be offering compensation to the ordinary people?[/p][/quote]Why should they reimburse us? It's the fault of the thick stupid jury that caused the case to go to a retrial. SotonLad
  • Score: 0

7:27pm Thu 21 Feb 13

cliffwalker says...

eurogordi wrote:
Thankfully I am exempt from jury duty but I would not be happy deciding someone's fate without having received proper training. After all, would you expect an untrained surgeon to carry out hospital surgery?

What concerns me most of all though it the cost of this case to the tax payer? Will Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce be offering compensation to the ordinary people?
The analogy with a professional is inappropriate in the case of a jury in England. A trial jury is deliberately non professional. If you want it otherwise you will have to change a process fundamental to our system of justice. Some systems do have professional or semi-professional jurors but I don't know if there's evidence that they do any better.
I think the Pryce trial is just one of those cases where we had a duff jury. According to the judge it is a rare case - who knows different?
[quote][p][bold]eurogordi[/bold] wrote: Thankfully I am exempt from jury duty but I would not be happy deciding someone's fate without having received proper training. After all, would you expect an untrained surgeon to carry out hospital surgery? What concerns me most of all though it the cost of this case to the tax payer? Will Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce be offering compensation to the ordinary people?[/p][/quote]The analogy with a professional is inappropriate in the case of a jury in England. A trial jury is deliberately non professional. If you want it otherwise you will have to change a process fundamental to our system of justice. Some systems do have professional or semi-professional jurors but I don't know if there's evidence that they do any better. I think the Pryce trial is just one of those cases where we had a duff jury. According to the judge it is a rare case - who knows different? cliffwalker
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Sir Ad E Noid says...

userds5050 wrote:
Geoff Siddall wrote:
Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC said the jury of eight women and four men did not appear to have ''truly understood'' or ''sufficiently grasped'' its task.

Maybe the Prosecutor and the Judge simply failed to make it clear to the jury in the first place.
Did you read the questions they put to the judge?
I can't believe this first comment by Mr Siddall. Clearly, the Judge gave them direction on a lot of the questions they asked, again, but they did not heed his direction. I think it is obvious from the questions that they did not even understand the basics of their jobs and responsibilities during their Jury service. Sometimes, life throws up instances where people are stretched beyond their limit of understanding, comprehension and suitability to be given anything other than menial tasks to complete. These twelve jurors are one of these instances. I only hope if I am ever judged by a Jury in a Court of Law, this lot are at home doing the Sun Crossword.
[quote][p][bold]userds5050[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Geoff Siddall[/bold] wrote: Prosecutor Andrew Edis QC said the jury of eight women and four men did not appear to have ''truly understood'' or ''sufficiently grasped'' its task. Maybe the Prosecutor and the Judge simply failed to make it clear to the jury in the first place.[/p][/quote]Did you read the questions they put to the judge?[/p][/quote]I can't believe this first comment by Mr Siddall. Clearly, the Judge gave them direction on a lot of the questions they asked, again, but they did not heed his direction. I think it is obvious from the questions that they did not even understand the basics of their jobs and responsibilities during their Jury service. Sometimes, life throws up instances where people are stretched beyond their limit of understanding, comprehension and suitability to be given anything other than menial tasks to complete. These twelve jurors are one of these instances. I only hope if I am ever judged by a Jury in a Court of Law, this lot are at home doing the Sun Crossword. Sir Ad E Noid
  • Score: 0

7:57pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Sir Ad E Noid says...

Tenderhearts wife wrote:
I cannot belive that this saga is still ongoing, where did they find these people? Did they mistakenly think that if they asked these questions that they would look inteligent? if so - big fail.Surely at least one of the twelve could have had common sense , enough to advise the spokes person to not embarress themselves in asking the questions. have I paid for this shamble with my hard earned taxes?Who cares if she did or didnt take the points willingly. Stop wasting taxpayers money on this freak show.
So you see nothing wrong with her Perverting the Course of Justice? Well I do, and I suspect I am not alone. Most of your comments I would agree with. Your last two sentences are ridiculous and make you out to foolish at best, stupid at worse.
[quote][p][bold]Tenderhearts wife[/bold] wrote: I cannot belive that this saga is still ongoing, where did they find these people? Did they mistakenly think that if they asked these questions that they would look inteligent? if so - big fail.Surely at least one of the twelve could have had common sense , enough to advise the spokes person to not embarress themselves in asking the questions. have I paid for this shamble with my hard earned taxes?Who cares if she did or didnt take the points willingly. Stop wasting taxpayers money on this freak show.[/p][/quote]So you see nothing wrong with her Perverting the Course of Justice? Well I do, and I suspect I am not alone. Most of your comments I would agree with. Your last two sentences are ridiculous and make you out to foolish at best, stupid at worse. Sir Ad E Noid
  • Score: 0

10:17pm Thu 21 Feb 13

J.P.M says...

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
Tenderhearts wife wrote: I cannot belive that this saga is still ongoing, where did they find these people? Did they mistakenly think that if they asked these questions that they would look inteligent? if so - big fail.Surely at least one of the twelve could have had common sense , enough to advise the spokes person to not embarress themselves in asking the questions. have I paid for this shamble with my hard earned taxes?Who cares if she did or didnt take the points willingly. Stop wasting taxpayers money on this freak show.
So you see nothing wrong with her Perverting the Course of Justice? Well I do, and I suspect I am not alone. Most of your comments I would agree with. Your last two sentences are ridiculous and make you out to foolish at best, stupid at worse.
"George Osborne will be forced into an embarrassing climbdown over next month's budget by having to admit that borrowing this year will go up, not down, according to his own independent tax and spending watchdog"

ha ha ha ha ha!
CUE:-
Of course.......the last government.........

blah blah blah”
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tenderhearts wife[/bold] wrote: I cannot belive that this saga is still ongoing, where did they find these people? Did they mistakenly think that if they asked these questions that they would look inteligent? if so - big fail.Surely at least one of the twelve could have had common sense , enough to advise the spokes person to not embarress themselves in asking the questions. have I paid for this shamble with my hard earned taxes?Who cares if she did or didnt take the points willingly. Stop wasting taxpayers money on this freak show.[/p][/quote]So you see nothing wrong with her Perverting the Course of Justice? Well I do, and I suspect I am not alone. Most of your comments I would agree with. Your last two sentences are ridiculous and make you out to foolish at best, stupid at worse.[/p][/quote]"George Osborne will be forced into an embarrassing climbdown over next month's budget by having to admit that borrowing this year will go up, not down, according to his own independent tax and spending watchdog" ha ha ha ha ha! CUE:- Of course.......the last government......... blah blah blah” J.P.M
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree