Harridan

Harriet Harman is a po-faced, humourless and arrogant. She wants us all to behave in ways she approves of, by force if necessary, and she doesn't think the country's laws apply to her. So it is very pleasant to hear an interview where she is utterly skewered on Labour's record over the last 13 years.

Stephen Nolan is the man who asks the questions (and keeps asking them) that we'd all like to hear the answers to. What I'd like to know is - why isn't this guy on mainstream TV? Why isn't the 'opposition' asking questions like this?

Listen here; the fun bit starts about 1hr 45 mins, interview is 30 mins long. Worth listening to the whole thing.

Tovarishch Harman - update

More detail about la Harman's conviction in The Times today. Further to my post of yesterday, it seems that the charges for using a mobile phone were not dropped, but were subsumed into the main charge of Driving Without Due Care:

Explaining why Ms Harman was not prosecuted for driving while using a hand-held telephone, Michael Jennings, reviewing lawyer from the Crown Prosecution Service’s special crime division, said: “Ms Harman’s guilty plea to driving without due care and attention included her admitting that she had been using a mobile phone at the time. In accepting Ms Harman’s guilty plea, the CPS was satisfied that the court would have enough sentencing power to impose a penalty which could reflect her total offending.”

Of course, she pleaded guilty, so that makes it all right. ("I have paid back the excess amount in full, so it is right that we should draw a line under this and move on to the things the British people are really interested in ...")

As for leaving the scene of an accident and/or failing to report, well ...

It emerged that prosecutors had considered charging Ms Harman with failing to report the accident, which carries a sentence of six months in prison, discretionary disqualification, up to ten points and a maximum fine of £5,000, but there was insufficient evidence.

(My emphasis.)

Insufficient evidence? Did she leave the scene without exchanging details, or didn't she? Did she report it to the police afterwards or didn't she? It's hardly a shades-of-grey judgement call for the prosecutors. As with all the events of 2009, it seems that there is one rule for them and one for us.

Nigel Evans speaks for us all:

“I suspect there will be a few fuming motorists looking at that judgment and wondering how she got off so lightly.”

Precisely.

Harriet Harman convicted

The fragrant and reasonable Harriet Harman has been convicted of driving without due care and attention, and fined £350 with costs, and collected another three points on her licence, to go with the six that are already there for two offences of speeding in a 30 limit. Story here.

That seems about right, to be honest. Smashing someone else's car through your own carelessness, and then not staying around to sort it out, is pretty reprehensible behaviour, and deserves a good slap on the wrist. The former Solicitor-General is now 75% of the way to a driving ban. It won't matter for the next few months, as she can always call upon a Government driver to take her hither and thither, but if she's out of a job after the election that could be a problem. Ha ha.

What is interesting is what she was not charged with.

• She left the scene of the accident without exchanging particulars with the other party, or even making an attempt to do so. I think the phrase she used as she exited smartly stage left was "I'm Harriet Harman; you know where to find me". (Exactly the arrogant 'toff' response that so enrages the class warriors in Labour.) Not to do so is an offence. Why was she not charged with this?

• She failed to report the accident to the police when she couldn't exchange details, which she is required to do by law. Why was she not charged with this?

• Many witnesses state that she was using a hand-held mobile phone at the time of the accident. This charge was withdrawn. Why?

A spokeswoman for the minister said: "Ms Harman fully accepts the court's judgement."

Well, I suppose we should be grateful for that. I would have expected a few tears, an 'I'm really the victim in all this' statement and a mention of institutional sexism, at least.

"Ms Harman is pleased that the potential charges of leaving the scene of an accident without exchanging particulars and failing to report an accident to the police have been dropped."

I'll bet she is. These are much more serious offences than dinging someone's door in a supermarket car park.

"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."

No damage? Are you sure? In which case, why was the case brought? If no damage was done, why were you in court at all? "Minister misses parked car and drives off" is hardly grounds for a prosecution, I would have thought.

The Harridan can now brush off any mention of the offences with a airy wave. The serious ones - the ones that demonstrate a contempt for the law and due process - were all withdrawn, and we are left with a minor scrape that could happen to anyone.

Nice day's work, Harriet.

Harriet's Forward Planning

Following on from the previous post, I see Our Harriet has been planning this for a while:

From June 2008 - "Ahead of a Commons Debate this week, Minister for Women Harriet Harman will today visit HMP Holloway, the UK’s largest all woman prison, as she takes part in Government’s new drive for fewer women to be sent to prison."

It's OK, love. They don't put people in prison for using a mobile whilst driving. Yet.

H/t.

Harriet, a criminal? Say it ain't so!

The Times is now reporting that Harriet Harman, Minister for Being Nasty to Blokes, is to face charges for motoring offences.

Harriet Harman’s political future was in the balance tonight after she became the first Cabinet minister in living memory to face criminal charges. The Crown Prosecution Service said Labour’s deputy leader would be prosecuted for allegedly driving without due care and attention and driving while using a mobile phone.

Now, as we have recently seen many of these greedy hypocrites have got away with fiddling tens of thousands of pounds from the public purse, by simply having to give an apology to their friends (the apology was due to us, you theiving bastards, not your partners in crime). So Harriet would appear to be fairly unlucky here. But apparently there is enough evidence to support a charge, and the CPS think that a prosecution would be in the public interest, so it's handcuffs and a scarf over the head for our Harriet on her next court appearance.

To be honest, I can't wait. Not for her to get the punishment she deserves, as that will never happen, but to hear her whinges and wheedles as she defends her conduct. Think of that vile Scotland woman, with her 'technical breaches' of the law, and her 'unintentional' actions. She is reported to be denying the charges, so she'll have to come up with something. Since there were apparently several wintesses, she will have to either a) come up with a really good excuse, like Gord phoned her up and offered her the Chancellorship, and she crashed the car from shock, or b) - my bet - discredit the witnesses as Tory stooges and Daily Mail readers. That would be New Labour's style. She'll get off, but it will be fun to see how she does it; and I can imagine it will drive another nail into the coffin of Labour's chances at the election.

But before the case comes to court (if it ever does - there's many things a former Minister of Justice can do and strings they can pull), I just want you to think of what might have happened if you or I had committed the same offences that she is alleged to have committed.

You are driving along a busy street, talking on your mobile. You are distracted by the conversation (as the Government has always argued that you must be), and you drive your car into a car parked by the side of the road. You attempt to drive away, but a crowd gathers. You wind down the window and shout "I am Fred Bloggs, you know where to find me!" and drive away without leaving your name, address and insurance details with anyone, as the law demands that you must.

Now, call me an old cynic, but I think you or I would be treated quite harshly. Minimum £60 and three points for the mobile; perhaps £500 and another three points for the Driving Without Due Care. However, I would be the most worried about the third charge. Leaving the scene of an accident is, quite rightly, a serious offence, and I would expect a large fine and a ban at the very least, and possibly a prison sentence somewhere in the background.

What's that? They are not charging her with leaving the scene? Oh, that's all right, then. Perhaps she didn't. Perhaps she's still there.

She'll either get off on a technicality, or she'll have a light rap across the knuckles for being careless. And in either case she will carry on as before, utterly without any shame. There won't even be an apology, much less a resignation. After all, laws are for the little people, aren't they? (And her a socialist and a believer in equality. Tchah.)

And, of course, there is the traditional Labour mistreatment of words.

Ms Harman strongly refutes the allegations.

If she wins in court, she will have refuted them. What you mean is she has denied them. Very different things.

The first cabinet minister in living memory to face criminal charges. An immediate resignation and a quite retirement from public life for a while might have earned her some respect. But on past form, she will bluster on, and it will all be a misunderstanding, a foregiveable lapse, or a Tory plot.

I despise these people.