Deadhead MPs, An Occasional Series: The Fiona Onasanya Story


I have, in the recent and fairly recent past, blogged about various MPs in a House of Commons where, increasingly, to be mediocre is a standard few can reach. See Notes, below. I have now decided to blog from time to time about a few more deadhead MPs, starting with recently-convicted Fiona Onasanya.

Now let us be clear: people in the UK, especially in the mainstream media [msm] tend to bend over backwards to be fair to ethnic minorities and especially blacks. You see it on quiz shows and in TV interviews and elsewhere. You see it even more in that echo-chamber of the pathetic “me too” “socially-liberal” multikultis, Twitter.

Some of the deadhead MPs (indeed, most) are white; however, the black ones can rely on getting a fairly easy ride from the msm until they really push the boat out in terms of stupidity, aggression or general uselessness. See, for example, Diane Abbott, Dawn Butler, Kate Osamor and now Fiona Onasanya.

Fiona Onasanya

Fiona Onasanya, a black African (Nigerian origin) but born in Cambridgeshire, and now 35 years old, is usually described as having been “a commercial property solicitor” prior to having been selected as a Labour PPC (prospective Parliamentary candidate) then elected as MP. I suppose that most people merely accept that bland potted bio, but in fact it is only superficially true.

Fiona Onasanya was Admitted to the ranks of solicitors in November 2015, at the age of 32. Prior to that (but exactly when, I do not know) she attended the University of Hertfordshire on an LL.B course, and then the University of Law (former College of Law) in order to qualify as a solicitor.

So what did Fiona Onasanya do between the ages of 18 and 32? A first degree and then Solicitors’ course together add up to about 4 years. That leaves 10 years outstanding. Her constituency website is not at all illuminating. Her Wikipedia entry states that she was a County Councillor in Cambridgeshire from 2013. That of course pays an allowance these days, as well as expenses (such as fuel for a car). Fiona Onasanya was also Deputy Leader of the Labour Group on that council, which pays extra (exactly how much, I do not know, but there are councillors with “extra responsibilities” that make a modestly good living out of it). At any rate, there seem to be 8-10 “missing years”, for which there may or may not be a good explanation.

Fiona Onasanya’s (self-drafted?) Wikipedia entry states that “She worked as a solicitor at Eversheds, Howes Percival, Nockolds and DC Law, specialising in commercial property law”, but she can have been little more than an office gopher. She worked for 4 different law firms in only 18 months! Probably no good and did little more than make coffee and read up on “diversity” regulations etc…

As for her selection as Parliamentary candidate, it seems to me that to have selected Fiona Onasanya, especially for somewhere like Peterborough, was almost an insult to the people of that city, 82.5% of whom are white, while only 2.3% are black (and little more than half of those are black African).

It now appears that there was no proper selection process. Here are tweets from the Political Correspondent of Channel Four News, Michael Crick, on the subject:

Fiona Onasanya was prosecuted for perversion of the course of justice, a charge which has brought a number of MPs to a prison cell, among them Jonathan Aitken and Chris Huhne (the latter on very similar facts to the present case).

Fiona Onasanya was lucky in her first jury, when the jury could not agree, even on the required 10-1 majority basis (one juror became unwell during trial). There must have been blacks and/or Labour Party partisans on that jury! Its prolonged deliberations and weekend adjournment brought hundreds of mocking tweets (heedless of “contempt of Court”), such as one which suggested that the jury would be sequestered for the weekend “in the local mental hospital”, so open-and-shut was Onasanya’s case. In fact, the second jury did not take long to find her guilty.

Since then, Fiona Onasanya has compared herself to Biblical figures who faced courts, such as Jesus Christ and Daniel, and to others who (apparently unknown to avid Nigerian church-goer Fiona) never faced courts at all (Moses, Joseph etc).

Future Developments

Fiona Onasanya faces a prison sentence. Though perversion of the course of justice carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, the relevant judicial guidelines indicate between 4 months and 36 months, with 12 months not uncommon in cases where the defendant lied about the identity of a car driver. Chris Huhne got 8 months, and that was on a guilty plea and far simpler facts (a simpler conspiracy). Jonathan Aitken got 18 months, also on guilty pleas, but his offence, in fact 2 offences, were intrinsically more serious, arguende.

If Fiona Onasanya is sentenced to a year or more in prison, she will be forced to vacate her seat (though in theory an MP so forced out can re-enter if again elected). The judge’s sentence will therefore either trigger a by-election, or keep Fiona Onasanya in her seat (at least until the next General Election). Jeremy Corbyn has given a broad hint that she faces deselection before that election anyway. Without the Labour label, she would probably get only a handful of votes.

My guess, albeit an educated guess, is that Fiona Onasanya will get a year or more of imprisonment. Why? Apart from the bare offence, she not only pleaded Not Guilty in both trials but also made up a complicated story with her brother (guilty of several similar offences), part of which was to blame an entirely innocent young Russian of whom they knew. He was saved from possible (indeed probable, arguably) prosecution only because he was visiting his family in Russia at the material time. The failure of the first jury to agree was plainly perverse and flew in the face of a plethora of convincing circumstantial and other evidence.

As to Fiona Onasanya’s future outside politics, it looks bleak: if imprisoned, she will undoubtedly be struck off the solicitors’ roll (that is a likelihood in any case). She is now 35. If imprisoned, she could be 37 when released. It looks as if the dole queue beckons. Either that or digging up potato from the heavy soil of Cambridgeshire.


Update, 5 January 2019

Update, 29 January 2019

On today’s date, Fiona Onasanya MP was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment, which means that she will actually be in prison for about 6 weeks minus days in court and in police custody, so probably about a month in the end, if that. Her brother got 10 months.

I am surprised at the leniency of the sentence, in that she deliberately set out on a course of deception, tried to blame someone else for the offence and pleaded Not Guilty despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence, thus necessitating two expensive trials (the first jury being unable to agree on a verdict).

In his very similar trial a few years ago, Chris Huhne got 8 months on a Guilty plea! As a former practising barrister who has (long ago, in the early/mid 1990s) conducted Crown Court criminal trials (though I was always more civil and commercial), I am aware that every sentencing is different because every defendant is different, but the anomaly here is stark. Fiona Onasanya gets about a third of Huhne’s sentence despite her crime being worse on the facts, despite having pleaded Not Guilty (twice). Is it because she is black? Or because she is a black woman? Vicky Pryce (see below) was a woman, after all, and she got 8 months, not 3, and for less. I read much about “white privilege”. Hardy ha ha.

Vicky Pryce got 8 months for having done less than either her husband or Fiona Onasanya. Vicky Pryce and Chris Huhne both actually served 9 weeks in prison before being released early, not the strict 4 months as might have been expected.

Reading the judge’s remarks in the Onasanya case (see tweet below), it is clear that he was floundering in trying to find a reason to suspend the sentence, but in the end could not, so made the sentence as lenient as he felt was possible.

Except that an ordinary citizen might have got a sentence of anything up to a year (maybe more) on similar facts.

On a side point, look at her brother’s “previous” (aka “form”)! Why do we allow such creatures to exist in our British society?

The lenient sentence means that, until removed by the electors of Peterborough, Fiona Onasanya will continue to collect about £1,000 a week after tax, whether in prison or not. She will also continue to get her flat rent, utilities etc paid for via Parliamentary expenses!

The only way to remove her early would be for 10% of Peterborough electors to demand that via a Petition of Recall, which would trigger a by-election. She has been expelled by Labour, which supports such a petition. However, it will take months both to organize the petition and then for a by-election to be held.

In fact, latest news is that the Recall Petition cannot even be started until Fiona Onasanya has finished her appeal process, which might be months or even (potentially) years. For all that time she will be dragging down £1,000 a week after tax, despite the fact that her assistant has said (to a newspaper) that she did no work as an MP whatsoever, and had 5,000 emails unanswered until she employed said assistant (via expenses, of course).

I suppose that there will be a General Election soon anyway and that, if this waste of space stands, she will get only about 10 votes, or at least only a few hundred (depending on how many Africans in Peterborough are totally stupid).

The Onasanya case proves yet again what a load of useless trash many MPs are now. In this case, her only known jobs are 18 months working as trainee (making the tea?) at a few law firms. At the age of 35. We should find some island somewhere and start deporting. Tristan da Cunha? Target number? In the millions.

Further Notes

Update, 31 January 2019

Well, I had no idea that the Attorney-General reads and takes account of my blogging! Only joking…but it seems that the A-G is considering whether to refer Fiona Onasanya’s sentence to the Court of Appeal as “unduly lenient”.

Update, 26 February 2019

Fiona Onasanya, still an MP and likely to remain one until the next general election, was released after only 28 days in prison. I guessed right on that.

Update, 5 March 2019

Fiona Onasanya lost her appeal, in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) against conviction. In theory, she might appeal to the Supreme Court, but it is unlikely that that would be allowed, there not being (as it seems) grounds for such appeal. It is doubtful too whether legal aid would be forthcoming for it, and Fiona Onasanya has no means with which to pursue a privately-paid appeal, though it occurs to me that it is in her financial interest, possibly, at least to make application to appeal, in that, as noted here above, she is getting (net of tax) about £1,000 (in pay) and a similar amount for her London rent, utilities etc paid to her (on Parliamentary expenses) for every week in which she still sits as MP, despite disgrace, despite conviction, despite imprisonment, despite the fact that “her assistant has said (to a newspaper) that she did no work as an MP whatsoever, and had 5,000 emails unanswered until she employed said assistant (via expenses, of course)“. Typical. Most of Africa is in near-chaos for the same reasons, because most blacks are incapable of organization…

So far, there have been no active moves made to start the procedure of recall, because the criminal appeal process is still active, even if only notionally. I expect that Fiona Onasanya will be able to hang on as MP until the Summer, if not until the end of the year. To stop her clinging on until the next general election, there has to be the political equivalent of stamping on her fingers, meaning

  • an end to the appeals process;
  • a Recall Petition in proper form;
  • a petition signed by at least 7,000 people in Peterborough;
  • a by-election.

Update, 18 March 2019

The deadhead has now made a video appealing to Peterborough voters to keep her as MP. She really must think that the people of Peterborough are as thick as she is! My guess? If there is a recall petition before a General Election, then I think that it will be voted for overwhelmingly, and that, in the subsequent by-election, she will get a vote of somewhere around 2%. Of course, in the meantime, because she is appealing her conviction, she is still receiving her over £77,000 p.a. salary, plus expenses such as a paid-for London flat (with all utilities, Council Tax etc also paid for).

ps. I liked the bit where she says that, if kept on as MP, she will use “all her veracity”! I thought that Pinocchio was Italian, not Nigerian!

Update, 4 April 2019

The creature (Fiona Onasanya) could not pronounce “eligible” or “ineligible”, saying “illegible” (i.e. did not know the difference!).

She is still on Twitter, and still tweeting as if the axe will not soon fall on her whole life and lifestyle!

Update, 30 April 2019

It seems all but inevitable that tomorrow a recall petition will approve the sacking of Fiona Onasanya and the calling of a by-election which might result in Brexit Party scoring a hit:

Update, 1 May 2019

It would be incredible if Farage stood for the seat and captured it (despite the fact that “Brexit Party” is obviously rather far from my position ideologically).

Update, 7 May 2019

The by-election will be held on 6 June 2019 (the anniversary of the Normandy Landings of 1944! You couldn’t make it up!) and, while Nigel Farage will not be standing, the Brexit Party will be putting up a candidate. Nominations close on 9 May. Look at the rally below. According to local newspapers, nearly 2,000 people. In a provincial city. In England.

(In fact, the photo there may not be of Brexit Party’s meeting)

As for Fiona Onasanya, she has now been removed as MP, and will almost certainly be expelled (struck off) from the solicitors’ profession (in which she only practised for about a year anyway). She is already effectively forgotten and will soon be back on the dole.

Update, 8 August 2019

Fiona Onasanya has, as expected, now been struck off the solicitors’ roll.

Update, 16 June 2020

Update, 19 June 2021

A few people have looked at these pages today, so I decided to look at the Twitter output of Fiona Onasanya. I found that she still tweets:

The fact that creatures like Fiona Onasanya were and still are selected as Labour candidates was one major reason why Labour started to slide from being a major party to becoming a niche party appealing to blacks, browns, public service workers and a few other groups.

Update, 5 October 2022

At the by-election necessitated by the removal of Fiona Onasanya as MP, Labour’s new candidate, Lisa Forbes, won narrowly from Brexit Party. pushing the Conservative Party candidate into third place. However, at the General Election of 2019, some 6 months later, Lisa Forbes was unseated by the same Conservative candidate (and Brexit Party relegated to a poor fourth place): see

My blog immediately after the 2019 by-election:

As for Fiona Onasanya herself, she was featured a couple of times in the (regional) news after release from prison [], and is still tweeting, though not very prolifically:

I even found a tweet with which I can agree:

I have no idea what Fiona Onasanya has been doing since 2019 in terms of work etc. Very little, it seems: see Her only known statement as to that:

I have now authored and published a book about my journey into politics, Parliament and prison entitled ‘Snakes & Adders’ (see, currently release monthly newsletters to subscribers, host workshops and am seeking to establish trauma informed care support for women in prison.

Outside of the political arena, I am an active member of my church, an avid reader and seek to encourage, inspire and assist others utilising the experience I am privileged to have.”

22 thoughts on “Deadhead MPs, An Occasional Series: The Fiona Onasanya Story”

    1. “It’s the way I tell ’em”, as some Ulster comedian (Frank Carson?) used to say.
      Strange thought process though (Huhne was the same): on the one hand, the downside is a fine of £100 or £150, a few penalty points and 2 mins bad publicity, on the other hand, being struck off as a solicitor, being ejected from Parliament for good (with potential loss amounting to millions) and a prison sentence (odds-on) of 1-2 years (odds-on too, imo)


  1. Selecting a candidate like her for a seat like Peterborough was probably an insult to the electorate there but I think the liberal-left globalist CONservative Party is guilty of choosing more inapropriately ie we have an ethnic woman being foisted? upon the very white and very safe Tory seat of Saffron Walden, another ethnic for the similarly very white and true Blue constituency of Hitchin and Harpenden (Peter Lilley’s old seat) the same again with Sam Gymia in East Surrey, the half-cast in Windsor yet the Tories don’t generally select these kind of candidates in marginal seats or those who have large numbers of ethnic minority voters and the Tory LGBT candidates are unlikely to get chosen to stand in anywhere other than safe Labour constituencies which they will never win! Just like in Orwell’s 1984 it seems that some minority pigs are more equal than others!


    1. Yes, the “Conservatives” like their blacks to come with bulging bank accounts and preferably an Etonian education. “Labour” scarcely seems to vet its candidates at all; of course, in the past, Labour candidates were all or almost all from longstanding trade union or other backgrounds where they were known about. Fiona Onasanya? Who she? Only known work (except local council freeloading for two years): 18 months making the tea at law firms…


  2. Onasanya follows proudly in the footsteps of racial sister Constance “Ugly” Briscoe who was the first judge (of some sort ) to be removed as a result of her conviction for PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE!

    However in the case of Onasanya I feel sorry for her (recognising some perversity in myself for doing so): her actual underlying motoring offence was footling and simply acknowledging it and paying some desultory fine or whatever would have had no effect on her prospects. If she had fallen from a greater height it would indeed be a classical Tragedy.

    As Nigel Farage observed in his autobiography, it’s usually not the underlying offence that gets you, it’s the cover-up.

    I wonder, had she been invited to Chancery Lane for tea and biccies (and a character assessment as a prospective student practitioner) as was apparently the custom till ca. the 1970s, whether she’d have entered the profession in the first place.

    As for the remarks concerning NEC, is this perhaps “Common Purpose” at work in their march through the institutions?

    PS: An article on jury nullification would be good if you have it at your fingertips. All I found was something about a plaque at the Old Bailey memorialising the case that first recognised it a few hundred years ago.


    1. My understanding is that a jury verdict cannot be nullified under any circumstances (except of course via appeal or Attorney-General’s reference to an appellate court). As to nullification *by* a jury, well that is part and parcel of having a jury system. There is a long history of it in the UK and elsewhere, eg in Tsarist Russia: see the trial of Vera Zasulich.

      Of course the Onasanya case was in itself non-political.

      Yes, Constance Briscoe. Ghastly. A severe “judge” when sitting (actually only a Recorder, i.e. p/t judge) and barrister. I think that she is on the dole now.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s