News

‘I am innocent’: Junior lawyer MP appeals to voters in bizarre YouTube video featuring New York skyline

By on
144

Fiona Onasanya released from prison last month

📸 Fiona Onasanya (YouTube)

A junior lawyer turned MP who was jailed for perverting the course of justice has produced a bizarre YouTube video maintaining her innocence and vowing to be a “voice of change in parliament”.

Fiona Onasanya, a commercial property law specialist, was jailed for three months in January after she was found guilty of lying to the police over a speeding ticket. The 35-year-old, who was expelled by the Labour party but continues to sit as the independent MP for Peterborough, was released last month after serving one-third of her sentence.

Onasanya now faces a by-election if more than 10% of her constituents — roughly 7,000 — sign a recall petition opening today.

Ahead of the petition, the Eversheds (now Eversheds Sutherland) lawyer released a two-minute YouTube video in which she protested her innocence. Speaking in front of what appears to be a New York City backdrop, Onasanya said: “Now I have this opportunity, I would like to ask: people have asked for my resignation but what would you do if you were innocent?”

Onasanya, who earlier this month lost a challenge against her conviction for perverting the course of justice, continued:

“Would you sit back and accept it? Would you accept it knowing in your heart of hearts that you are innocent? Or would you fight to clear your name? I am telling you I am innocent and I will continue to pursue avenues to clear my name. If you wish for me to continue as your independent member of parliament, I am willing and able to do so. But the choice is now in your hands.”

At trial, Onasanya told the court she assumed she was in Westminster when her Nissan Micra was photographed by a speed camera doing 41mph in a 30mph zone in Thorney, near Peterborough, on 24 July last year. The prosecution, however, maintained that she had schemed with her brother to deceive police by claiming a former tenant, Alek Antipow, was driving the vehicle. Inquiries later revealed Antipow was at home with his parents in Russia at the time.

Onasanya’s brother, Festus Onasanya, admitted three charges of perverting the course of justice a week before he was due to face trial. He was sentenced to ten months in prison.

The recall petition will remain open for six weeks.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter

144 Comments

Anonymous

How did she get to go to New York? Isn’t she breaching her parole conditions?

(29)(4)

Anonymous

D1NDOO

NUFF1N!!!

(8)(5)

Anonymous

The fact that the video features the New York skyline is really important.

For some reason.

(17)(0)

Anonymous

It’s actually the Peterborough skyline…

(15)(1)

Anonymous

Literally all of this could have been avoided if she’d paid £100 and taken the three points. What a moron.

(78)(0)

Anonymous

Exactly, its not like you would be slandered for getting 3 points!

(8)(0)

Liberturd Leftie

The cover up is always worse.

(6)(0)

Anonymous

She should go to Strasbourg with this case. An appalling vista.

(10)(1)

Tim

Bet if she was white this would never have happened, the police would’ve dropped it immediately.

(4)(78)

Anonymous

Definitely. White MPs have never gone to gaol.

(5)(17)

Anonymous

*jail

(6)(18)

Anonymous

What’s wrong with the spelling of ‘gaol’?

(19)(11)

Anonymous

Erm, it’s wrong…. Embarrassing for you.

Anonymous

Now this is very awkward now for you.

Gaol is a variant spelling of jail.
Check the OED.

Anonymous

Are you high? Did you learn that at gunaor school, lol? Seriously, If you’re in a hole, gust stop digging… 🙂

Anonymous

*just

Anonymous

WHOOSH

Anonymous

HAH!

Gaoler

King Lear-

Act I Scene VI

“then I am the prisoner, his bed my gaol”.

Anonymous

The ballad of reading gaol anyone?

Anonymous

I read it, and saw it was spelt wrong.

Anonymous

Oh get you, you can read the dictionary.

Meanwhile the rest of us speak modern English.

But you’re oh so clever.

Anonymous

It is not “wrong”, it has however largely been replaced by the American spelling. It is however still used around the world, although now rarely in Britain. Not embarrassing at all for the OP, more embarrassing for person that feels the need to resort to one-upmanship on the comment section of LC.

Anonymous

Like you, bro.

Anonymous

If any of you dunces had ever been to the older Westminster Mags Court, you would have seen signs dated no earlier than the 1970s mentioning “gaolers”.

“Jail” is an Americanism.

I blame “Monopoly”, which was originally an American game.

Anonymous

Wow something you remembered from 50 years ago. Is that the best reference you have?

Anonymous

An Americanism that was used by Shakespeare?

Taming of the Shrew, Act 5, scene 1, line 87:
“Call forth an officer: Carrie this mad knaue to the Jaile”.

Anonymous

“Jail”…”Jaile”… you can read, right? American English is renowned for dropping letters from words.

Anonymous

Wrong.

The meaning is in fact: “carry this mad knave to the jelly”.

How embarrassing for you.

Anonymous

Shakespeare was a terrible speller. Though they did not really have spelling back then. Certainly the grammar police did not throw anyone in gaol for it.

Anonymous

Chris Huhne?

(9)(0)

Anonymous

Assume this is sarcasm but for any SJW readers who see this and don’t get it because they don’t do jokes, please read about the ex-MP Chris Huhne (a straight cis white middle class man I should note)

(15)(4)

Anonymous

Unlikely, Chris Huhne? Exactly the same offence, but a longer sentence. By your reasoning she has been given an easy ride because of her ethnicity.

(12)(1)

Anonymous

“I’m a victim!”

You had a jury trial and were represented by counsel. You were convicted and your appeal failed.

Give it up. Throw in the fact your brother pleaded guilty, you are on shaky foundations.

(56)(0)

Anthony

Being represented by Counsel means bullshit in Britain and get that straight….!! I have heard of horror stories where the so called Counsel representing their own clients have deliberately hidden the clients disability and indeed even intimidated the client that they should not mention their disability any where. Of course the judge would not know of these shananigans!! outside of the court room… So to keep the client from speaking there are cases where counsel just come forward and decide at the last miniute that their client has no case to answer and will not give evidence – so the end result is that the Counsel has earned his bribe money from the other side, any report will continue to state that the defendant was represented by Counsel ( though CORRRUPT Counsel more likely) and they can go after a woman from a minority ethnic group. Eversheds should be ashamed of themselves if they even had a minute hand in this!! Enough Said!!

(6)(30)

Timothy Compton

I confess that as a practising barrister for some 35 years, I am fascinated from whom you have heard these “horror stories” and it seems to be beyond you to actually cite any hard evidence, merely unattributed gossip, which, of course, I am sure comes from an unimpeachable source(s)?

(15)(8)

Anonymous

So is your mum.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Timothy, if you’ve been a barrister for 35 years you can’t seriously be surprised at the suggestion that counsel might behave as alleged.

(3)(0)

Anthony

Timothy I can assure you the appalling example given above is backed by documentary evidence. And yes this case did happen in UK ‘s Capital London and not in some small remote town in a third world country!!!

(2)(3)

Anonymous

Details, please?

Anonymous

What you been smokin’ bro?

(1)(1)

Anonymous

RESIGN.

That would be the honourable thing to do.

(30)(1)

Anonymous

You can’t use cultural concepts such as “honourable” as a stick to beat someone.

It means different things in different cultures.

In some cultures young women end up dead as a result of families defending their “honour”.

In some cultures shouting your innocence as loud as you can (even in the face of damning evidence) is the way to defend your honour.

You are being culturally colonial by insisting that this person would be doing the “honourable” thing by resigning.

Check your privilege.

(4)(20)

Anonymous

What a ridiculous response.

(11)(0)

Anonymous

If I was being culturally colonial I wouldn’t let you speak you complete and utter muppet

(3)(1)

Anonymous

You “let” me speak?

Are you therefore my master?

Am I beholden to you?

No!

You have demonstrated your cultural colonialism right there!

(0)(9)

Anonymous

Well done, you have elaborated on what I said

JOKE
—>
YOUR HEAD

Anonymous

As have you…

💩 on your head!

Anonymous

This is a part of a broader breakdown in trust in rules/conventions, with those in positions of prominence setting the tone. It started with the decision to bail out rather than punish the banks post 2008, has continued with Theresa May’s appalling failure to resign despite losing key votes at every turn, and now you’re left with politicians/lawyers like Onasanya denying the rule of law (while also appallingly failing to resign). It’s terrible but can you blame her?

(6)(9)

Anonymous

Yes. Yes you can.

(19)(1)

Jobbie Travers

It takes some serious personality disorder to repeatedly lie and manipulate to this extent.

(31)(1)

William Connolly

JOBBIE!!!!!!

(1)(0)

Anonymous

A BIG JOBBIE!!!!

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Nah, just a little jobbie!

(0)(1)

Anonymous

Good to see that she still has no judgment.

(22)(0)

Anonymous

She does have judgment!

The one that say…. “GUILTY!!!!!!!”

(22)(1)

Anonymous

Didn’t do something, brother!

(0)(2)

Yes I believe she's innocent lols

What planet does she live on, she’s been convicted yet still states she’s innocent.

Sounds like an attempt to hold on to the only prospect of her earning 77k for the rest of her life.

(15)(0)

Anonymous

That video is pathetic and an embarrassment

(7)(0)

Hannibal

In 2019, a crack Labour MP was sent to prison for a crime she didn’t commit. She was promptly released from a minimum security stockade to the Peterborough underground. Today, still part of our government, she survives as an ankle tagged independent.

(11)(0)

Anonymous

She’s on the jazz!

(0)(0)

Anonymous

You wankers have never been to Peterborough otherwise you’d realise this is the Peterborough skyline.

Just get an hour on the train and you’d see you cosseted London nancies.

(6)(0)

Anonymous

I don’t know if she’s guilty or not, but if she really is innocent she has a right to say so.

(1)(5)

Anonymous

Her own party agent gave evidence that placed her in her car, on the road in question, at the time of the speeding offence. He was able to give this evidence because he’d had a meeting with her that very evening, and therefore knew she was on her way home. But you don’t know if she’s guilty or not…

(10)(2)

Anonymous

He could have been a lying racist?

(0)(4)

Anonymous

Could have been, but the jurors clearly didn’t think so and I trust their view more than yours in this specific scenario tbh. I’m sure you’ll understand.

(7)(2)

Anonymous

Tbh you come across as sounding like your convinced of her guilt no matter what, so I wouldn’t fully trust your view. Sure you’ll understand, or perhaps not.

Anonymous

She has no fresh evidence at all that she is not guilty. She was convicted by a jury of her peers who were satisfied so they were sure that she was guilty of the offence. The judge didn’t see any issue with her conviction and neither did the CA. Her own brother plead guilty. Her party withdrew the whip from her.

If she can get some compelling new evidence thats fine and i’ll consider it. But until then she’s guilty. Any criminal can (and many do) maintain they are innocent. The system (and society) wouldn’t work if their convictions were just always open to second-guessing on their say so.

Anonymous

It isn’t for her to prove she’s not guilty, its for the prosecution to prove their case. Just because her party withdrew the whip doesn’t mean she was guilty – parties often withdraw the whip when someone is charged or even before.

She says she’s innocent. The court found her guilty. The reality is neither you or I know if she’s guilty or not. You may think she’s guilty, but you don’t really know. And unfortunately (and this will make your head explode) the system doesn’t work because many people who are not guilty are convicted.

Anonymous

No, just mindful that she had a trial and a failed appeal.

YOU on the other hand appeared convinced this is some sort of racist conspiracy and nothing we say will convince you otherwise.

HTH

Anonymous

She didn’t have an appeal.

I have made no suggestion that this us a racist conspiracy, I merely say that I don’t know if she’s guilty or not, same as you. One thing in her favour is that people are prone to false accusations, such as you accusing people who say they don’t know if she’s guilty of ‘racist conspiracies’. Well done for casting doubt on her conviction.

HTH

Anonymous

She applied to the C of A for permission to appeal, which was refused. By all accounts she didn’t have a leg to stand on.

We do know whether she was “guilty” or not – she was found guilty.

HTH

Anonymous

Right, so there wasn’t an appeal then, much less one which found she didn’t have a leg to stand on.

We don’t know whether she was guilty, we know she was found guilty. Elementary lesson is law – don’t assume the two are the same.

HTH

Anonymous

So in the eyes of the law she is guilty? Thanks.

And her application for appeal was dismissed because it was hopeless? Thanks.

Anonymous

So we don’t know if she was guilty. Thanks.

So her application for appeal wasn’t dismissed because it was hopeless. Thanks.

So she had no appeal. Thanks.

So you still don’t know if she was guilty. Thanks.

HTH

Anonymous

You are actually tying yourself up in knots so much that you aren’t making sense. I appreciate this level of mental gymnastics must be tough – life is simpler when you stick to the facts.

GUILTY

GUILTY

GUILTY

WHERE’S JEREMY CORBYN

Anonymous

You still don’t know she’s guilty. Sorry that fact seems to have prompted some sort of meltdown.

HTH

Anonymous

A jury in possession of the facts was sure she was guilty.

Anonymous

The jury thought she was guilty, but didn’t know, the same as you and I.

Anonymous

Yup, like you, @7.52am, I don’t know if she’s guilty or not. You mention the party agent’s evidence, but what was Onasanya’s response to this evidence?

(2)(2)

Anonymous

I’m neither lying or racist.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

But just blinkered. You didn’t answer the question though.

Anonymous

No, not blinkered either. I didn’t say Ms. Onasanya was driving, I said the evidence of her political agent placed her in her car, so she may indeed be innocent of the speeding offence. What isn’t in dispute is that there is a dated, timed and GPS located photograph of a car registered to Ms. Onasanya exceeding a speed limit. Either she was driving, in which case pay the fine and accept the points. If she wasn’t driving then simply say who was. It really is that simple.

Anonymous

But what was her response to these claims? That is the question you still haven’t answered. It really is that simple.

Anonymous

I understand that her response was that she hadn’t realised that her meeting with her agent, and the speeding offence were on the same evening.

Anonymous

So she admitted she was in the car?

Anonymous

You do know that she is guilty because the jury said so. It is now an objective truth that she did that of which she was accused.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

You don’t know that she’s guilty, the same as me, because I said so.

Juries provide a subjective opinion, their decision doesn’t become objective fact. You can choose to believe something, but that doesn’t make it true.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

This would not have happened if she was white or had rich parents. F*cking outrage.

(0)(7)

Anonymous

No, this would not have happened if she had said she was driving the car, paid the fine and took the points.

(9)(1)

Anonymous

If she did it.

(0)(2)

Anonymous

Just look into her crazed eyes. Watch the video again and look into her eyes.

After you’ve done that re-read her previous statements where she compared herself to Jesus of Nazareth.

(9)(0)

Belinda

I can see it in her eyes that she is not guilty.

Anonymous

If you look closely into her eyes you can see a tiny reflection of Jesus.

Anonymous

That’s just your God syndrome.

Anonymous

At 1m 56s you can see Jesus flying in the background

Anonymous

God syndrome again!

Anonymous

If course the Huhne’s were victims of racist conspiracies too weren’t they?

(2)(1)

Anonymous

One thing in her favour is that people are prone to false accusations, such as you accusing people who say they don’t know if she’s guilty of ‘racist conspiracies’. Well done for casting doubt on her conviction.

(2)(4)

Anonymous

To stand up for this poster, no. That’s you twisting his words.

It was those defending her on this thread who brought race into it.

It’s like me being accused of stealing the work milk, you then saying that people are accusing me of being a tight Yorkshireman, then onlookers telling you to stop making it an anti Yorkshire conspiracy, then you saying they are turning it into a county issue.

(2)(1)

Anonymous

Oh and FAOD I do steal other people’s work at milk on the sly, don’t feel guilty about it, and would always deny it.

Though I don’t think it makes me Jesus.

(1)(1)

Anonymous

Yes, and nor do we.

Anonymous

Wrong to think its twisting words. clearly its nonsensical to say that anyone who says they don’t know if she’s guilty is part of a ‘racist conspiracy’. All it does is strengthen her claims.

I don’t see the relevance of Yorkshiremen and dairy products.

(1)(4)

Anonymous

Guilty as fuck.

(17)(1)

Anonymous

You don’t know that, but what makes you think so?

(0)(2)

Anonymous

LOOK AT THE COURT RECORD

GUILTY

LOCK HER UP

(5)(1)

Anonymous

She already has been locked up in case you missed it.

You think she’s guilty but you don’t know if she is.

(0)(2)

Anonymous

The police charges her so she must be guilty.

What more do you want?

(3)(3)

Anonymous

Sadly some people think being charged is the same as being guilty, but that’s a different discussion.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Well done for completely changing the subject.

Anything to distract people from the clear as the light of day obvious guilt in this matter.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

Not changing the subject, responding to a comment. Sorry you can’t tell the difference. The same way that you can’t tell the difference between knowing someone is guilty and thinking they’re guilty.

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories