Sunday, December 18, 2011
Vicky Haigh - imprisoned for 3 years for saying hello
The link is to a story behind the paywall of the Sunday Times relating to Friday's jailing at around 4pm of Vicky Haigh for 3 years.
On the way to the meeting in London (at which she asked a question of Anthony Douglas which was one of the reasons for which Doncaster MDC tried to have her imprisoned) she saw her daughter and went to say hello.
At a time at which the press would not ordinarily be there on Friday she was given 3 years.
Doesn't seem right to me.
It remains that she has not yet managed to appeal the original family court decisions mainly because the solicitors are holding onto the file.
It is also the case that the promised publication of various documents by the authories promised earlier this year has not happened.
I suppose keeping her in jail will make it even harder for her to challenge the original decision. posted by John Hemming ¶ 12:11 pm
On the way to the meeting in London (at which she asked a question of Anthony Douglas which was one of the reasons for which Doncaster MDC tried to have her imprisoned) she saw her daughter and went to say hello.
At a time at which the press would not ordinarily be there on Friday she was given 3 years.
Doesn't seem right to me.
It remains that she has not yet managed to appeal the original family court decisions mainly because the solicitors are holding onto the file.
It is also the case that the promised publication of various documents by the authories promised earlier this year has not happened.
I suppose keeping her in jail will make it even harder for her to challenge the original decision. posted by John Hemming ¶ 12:11 pm
Comments:
<< Home
ON the facts you set out then I might agree "It doesn't seem right to me"
Googling for some background I'm less convinced:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/08/23/racehorse-trainer-vicky-haigh-coached-her-daughter-to-falsely-claim-her-dad-was-a-paedophile-high-court-rules-115875-23365076/
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/jailed_ex_racehorse_trainer_vicky_haigh_locked_up_for_three_years_1_4070594
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075720/Former-racehorse-trainer-jailed-contacting-daughter-7-following-bitter-custody-battle.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
It seems the court found that there was more said than "hello". There is also reference to a jury trial (not sure if it is this matter or something else from the reports)
Courts sit and sentence people to prison on Fridays in every town, every week.
Googling for some background I'm less convinced:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/08/23/racehorse-trainer-vicky-haigh-coached-her-daughter-to-falsely-claim-her-dad-was-a-paedophile-high-court-rules-115875-23365076/
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/jailed_ex_racehorse_trainer_vicky_haigh_locked_up_for_three_years_1_4070594
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075720/Former-racehorse-trainer-jailed-contacting-daughter-7-following-bitter-custody-battle.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
It seems the court found that there was more said than "hello". There is also reference to a jury trial (not sure if it is this matter or something else from the reports)
Courts sit and sentence people to prison on Fridays in every town, every week.
Well there are two possibilities here aren't there
a) Saying hello is now a criminal offence
b) John is making things up again
"Doesn't seem right to me."
Indeed
a) Saying hello is now a criminal offence
b) John is making things up again
"Doesn't seem right to me."
Indeed
The fact that nothing had happened between the events of 29th March and the court hearing makes it clear that an immediate custodial sentence was not necessary for a deterrent effect.
It was the breach of a Non Molestation Order.
It was the breach of a Non Molestation Order.
From the one press report I've been able to locate it is clear that the judge sent her to prison because he was satisfied that given her track record any other order would be flouted. He concluded that locking her up was the only way to keep her away. A sad outcome indeed but I can't see she gave the judge any choice. Incidentally I see even Booker gave this one a miss in his column. Are you still doubling down on this one?
Which is why my point remains. There was no incident between 29th March and the court hearing about 8 months later.
Christopher has written about this case recently and I would expect him to write again. That, of course, is his choice.
Christopher has written about this case recently and I would expect him to write again. That, of course, is his choice.
This is what angers me about the 'justice' system.
They will jail you if you disrepect their authority but many violent offenders just get suspended jail sentences. They care more about their own authority then they do for people.
By the way, what is your agenda, Jimmy?
They will jail you if you disrepect their authority but many violent offenders just get suspended jail sentences. They care more about their own authority then they do for people.
By the way, what is your agenda, Jimmy?
He has indeed. He wrote a couple of weeks ago that she was on remand awaiting trial in the new year, even though it appears she had already been found guilty at the time. I assume she was his source for this and he has continued his practice of not actually attending any of the cases he reports but relying on the disgruntled party for information.
Once again someone who has been encouraged to disobey the courts due to lurid conspiracy theories about the system. As before I'm bound to ask whether or not you believe you have any responsibility here?
Once again someone who has been encouraged to disobey the courts due to lurid conspiracy theories about the system. As before I'm bound to ask whether or not you believe you have any responsibility here?
Just out of interest, did you attend the trial? If not, what was your source for your assertion that this was a "minor technical breach".
John - the incident was in March. However it seems from the Mail report that the trial was in November, with sentencing recently.
That seems to me to be a fairly usual timescale for a matter going to Crown Court. Or are you suggesting that the appropriate course for breach of a non-molestation order is prison after a summary trial?
Will you agree that there was more than "hello" said?
That seems to me to be a fairly usual timescale for a matter going to Crown Court. Or are you suggesting that the appropriate course for breach of a non-molestation order is prison after a summary trial?
Will you agree that there was more than "hello" said?
how can jailing be for talking ever be considered right, no matter what was said.....? jailing people for defending themselves/ killing in self defence is bad enough....
If that court was indeed the Royal Courts of Justice then most of the judges would be hanging on ropes by the entrance.
Andrew, do you realise that they can and do re-arrange some of the letters in what you just said and use that as an excuse to lock you up and torture you in a ental instituion for years on end....no trial, no kanagaroo no nothing? obviously they log IP adresses here....one giant honey trap here! and the law would make John grass you up.... (????) apaprently.....non physicalle ntities can make even semi decent people turn into the worst kind of criminals...(ever bought into that one eithe myself, nothing if not principled here....they wnt martyrme though....)
"are you suggesting that the appropriate course for breach of a non-molestation order is prison after a summary trial?"
"Will you agree that there was more than "hello" said?"
I take it that is a "no" then!
"Will you agree that there was more than "hello" said?"
I take it that is a "no" then!
so why aren't 'officially designated' rape victims not jailed for pejury when the accused is found not guilty then?
I cannot beleive some of the comment from Jimmy, I was involved in a similar case where the father had been sexually gromming the child, the child said so himself in a police interview, the mother ended up being jailed for trying to protect her child by running away with him, it was one of the most discusting cases I have seen, yes I saw and read the evidence before you ask, yet because of the secrecy and judge the mother was not allowed to get her own experts in, the child now lives with the father and I for one pray daily that he leaves this poor child alone, however he is being watched craefully by people who know what happened as that is all we can do untill the family courts are open. I was her Makensie friend so had privvy to the paperwork. John keep doing what you are doing, its only satan and his workers that are trying to stop you from helping the poor children.
A police inspectors daughter and wife said more than 'hello'to my family and my disabled daughter was their target for disgusting vile written abuse NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE. I have over 100 screen shots for the first 2 weeks of this month where they continue writing their filth
Twistedswords.blogspot.com
Vicky Haigh should never have been jailed disgraceful
Post a Comment
Twistedswords.blogspot.com
Vicky Haigh should never have been jailed disgraceful
<< Home
