Live blog: Ultra marathon athlete to RUN entire Tour de France route, Ian To targets LEJOG record, Mail pushes for Alliston perjury charge + more

StoopidUserName wrote:

So how many 10,000's of drivers are gonna get investigated for perjury then?

Thought so.

Exactly: I wonder exactly how many of those "my client is totally remorseful and needs to keep their driving licence otherwise their wife will leave them, their kids will turn to drugs, and they'll lose their job, just before the sky falls in"-type pleas are actually a load of foetid dingoes kidneys...?  ​   Is that not perjury too?

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

At the end of the day he got convicted so his experience (or lack of) counted for nothing anyway.

Odd one perjury as basically if you lose your case then what they are saying is they didn't believe you...so surely you've perjured yourself by losing your case anyway.

 

Exactly.  Surely every defendant who pleads not guilty and is found guilty is  a perjurer. Unless the prosecution are perjurers.

racyrich wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

At the end of the day he got convicted so his experience (or lack of) counted for nothing anyway.

Odd one perjury as basically if you lose your case then what they are saying is they didn't believe you...so surely you've perjured yourself by losing your case anyway.

 

 

Exactly.  Surely every defendant who pleads not guilty and is found guilty is  a perjurer. Unless the prosecution are perjurers.

I haven't looked it up but I thought you entered your plea before you were sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth etc. etc... therefore perjury doesn't apply to your plea.

Mark.

racyrich wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

At the end of the day he got convicted so his experience (or lack of) counted for nothing anyway.

Odd one perjury as basically if you lose your case then what they are saying is they didn't believe you...so surely you've perjured yourself by losing your case anyway.

 

 

Exactly.  Surely every defendant who pleads not guilty and is found guilty is  a perjurer. Unless the prosecution are perjurers.

Next they'll charge him with not taking the sentence with a smile.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

At the end of the day he got convicted so his experience (or lack of) counted for nothing anyway.

Odd one perjury as basically if you lose your case then what they are saying is they didn't believe you...so surely you've perjured yourself by losing your case anyway.

 

Not really, the jury's duty is to weigh up conflicting accounts presented by prosecution and defence and decided which account is correct; both sides can believe their evidence is true, Aliston can believe the collisison was unavoidale, the prosecution alleged it wasn't, the jury went with the prosecution.  It's only perjury if you gave an account which you know wasn't true, for example if Aliston had said he wasn't there at all.  Generally, as far as I'm aware, prosecutions for perjury only tend to occur if a defendant (e.g. jeffrey Archer) was exonerated on the basis of something which later proved to be a palpable lie.  Any lies told during the process of being fond guilty are taken, I think, to be punished by the sentencing, for example people who admit guilt immediately tend to have that taken into account.

But even if Aliston did perjure himself it's in relation to such a tiny matter - exaggerating his couriering experience - that it's clearly politically motivated, as was the whole case, which received more media attention than any number of drink drivers killing people.  Shameful abuse of the judicial system to hammer an anti-cycling agenda.