Vicky Pryce is guilty

(700 Posts)
UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea Thu 07-Mar-13 15:05:00

shock

springyhop Mon 11-Mar-13 21:13:09

Did anyone see the slimebag CH in his channel 4 interview blaming VP? 'yy I lied and lied again but she caused the family so much harm, I don't think she thought it through'.

He's managed to make her look like an idiot, entirely responsible for the mess (he had nothing to do with it, just standing by), as well as ignoring the 'harm to the family' of his running off with his BOS and treating his wife of decades like a piece of shit.

Its not contempt of court though is it? It is perverting the course of justice, a much worse crime.

I completely understand why they are being made examples of. They have chosen, or at least VP has chosen, to play this out in the papers and in the full glare of the media. If nothing else is going to come out of this sorry mess then at least use their conviction to make sure other people don't commit the same offence and that continue to think that taking somebody else's speeding points is not a big deal.

VivaLeBeaver Mon 11-Mar-13 21:19:33

Sorry, meant perverting the course of justice. It's been a long day! So yes, trying to get away with something, then lying to the court, etc. I'm suprised they got eight months, thought it would be more like 12 to 24 months but then I'm no expert in sentencing.

edam Mon 11-Mar-13 21:55:27

I'm horrified that the Times was so shoddy about tamely handing over confidential material. Protecting your sources is a moral imperitive. This wasn't murder, or an immediate threat to life or limb - WTF were Oakeshott and her bosses thinking?

drownangels Mon 11-Mar-13 22:03:32

I think they should be put in the same cell as each other for the next eight months! Neither of them have come across good people.

edam Mon 11-Mar-13 22:16:55

Deeply depressing seeing the judge give such a sexist statement. He called Pryce 'controlling, manipulative and devious' - words that he didn't apply to her ex-husband, who spent what was it, £250k on the best lawyers in the country trying to twist his way out of it and get the charges dismissed on spurious grounds. What the hell is that if not controlling, manipulative and devious? That judge needs diversity training urgently.

bemybebe Mon 11-Mar-13 22:17:46

I have no sympathy whatsoever for either of these individuals. They are going to prison, at least one has ruined completely his career and the other one has done serious damage to it. As someone mentioned above I am completely baffled by the journalist revealing its source - wtf?? Nobody came up smelling of roses here, did they?

claig Mon 11-Mar-13 22:25:31

From the Nick Cohen Spectator piece:

'the tricky question of why the Sunday Times delivered Pryce to the cops. We put up ‘a vigorous fight’ she assures her readers. ‘But eventually we were forced by a judge to give up the correspondence, along with copies of our written agreement with Vicky.’

This is not how the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, described it. In a statement issued on October 3 last year, he said that the CPS had advised the police that they needed the confidential information from Pryce in Oakeshott’s possession if they were to send Pryce and Chris Huhne to the dock. In October 2011, the authorities secured a court order for the ‘newspaper to produce material to the police’. The Sunday Times appealed, as it should have done. But, Starmer continued, Witherow and Oakeshott’s resolution soon faded. They did not fight to protect their source ‘but subsequently consented to producing the material in question just before the appeal was due to be heard, on 20 January this year’.

The emails they handed over were crucial, Starmer implied. They ensured there was ‘*sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against Mr Huhne* and Ms Pryce for perverting the course of justice’.

blogs.channel4.com/gary-gibbon-on-politics/chris-huhne-it-got-out-of-hand/22454

claig Mon 11-Mar-13 22:27:34
ComposHat Mon 11-Mar-13 23:14:14

What the hell is that if not controlling, manipulative and devious? That judge needs diversity training urgently

No that description fits Vicky Pryce's behaviour, perfectly, but Huhne's less so. I'd put him down as arrogant, aloof and contemptuous of the law and the need for safe driving.

Gender equality doesn't demand that people should be described using identical adjectives.

edam Mon 11-Mar-13 23:20:55

Gender equality demands that you treat men and women fairly, rather than demonising women even when the man is at least equally culpable, if not more so.

edam Mon 11-Mar-13 23:22:45

And of course it's manipulative to use every legal trick in the book to get the charges dropped, costing the CPS £100k. FGS. And it's manipulative to get your wife to take your speeding points. The question is why the judge chose to attach that pejorative adjective solely to Pryce rather than both of them.

ComposHat Mon 11-Mar-13 23:54:41

Edam I agree that gender equality means treating people fairly although doesn't extend to applying the same adjective to describe two different albeit equally shitty sets of behaviours.

And of course it's manipulative to use every legal trick in the book to get the charges dropped, costing the CPS £100k. FGS. And it's manipulative to get your wife to take your speeding points. The question is why the judge chose to attach that pejorative adjective solely to Pryce rather than both of them

The judgement refers specifically to Vicky Pryce's use of the media as 'devious', which it was. She tried to land a powerless (female) assistant in the shite to keep herself out of the story, tried to use homophobic smears and then drag friends who had supported her into the mire too.

The judge didn't refer to her use of a bullshit marital coercion defence as devious anymore than he referred to his bullshit attempts to get the case kicked out. I don't think either was devious in that respect, in both cases their lawyers were pursuing their clients interests within the law. That's what lawyers do.

mathanxiety Mon 11-Mar-13 23:55:26

[The judge said VP had a:
"controlling, manipulative and devious side,"
How is that misogynistic? It appears to be true.]

It is misogynistic because it refers to her conduct in the wake of her marriage - she was tried for the female crime of being bitter. This crime is worse than anything manipulative a man could commit.

ComposHat Tue 12-Mar-13 00:00:35

she was tried for the female crime of being bitter.

No she was tried for the crime of perverting the course of justice and it was a self inflicted trip to the dock -

A) She willingly took the points
B) She then blabbed all about it to any journo who would listen.

mathanxiety Tue 12-Mar-13 00:10:34

Controlling, manipulative and devious refer to her decision to expose her exH and not to perverting the course of justice per se. A main smoke and mirrors element of the prosecution argument was that Pryce had been motivated by a desire for revenge against Huhne after his betrayal. The judge referred to her 'weapon of choice' in seeking revenge when sentencing her.

Xenia Tue 12-Mar-13 06:51:05

Huhne is continuing his twisting of the facts. His interview said he did not think it was known what financial implications this debacle might have on the ability to help the children on to the housing ladder. I think there will have been enough money following their divorce settlement on both sides to help the children get a deposit on a house. His lover anyway can work and contribute to that - plenty of step parents help step children. It felt like a public dig at his wife yet again and a twisting of the truth. There is no reason his wife cannot work again anyway.

He also talks about a very small lie, over the points. He does not mention the very very big series of lies of his affair which is what really caused the problem. Hiding a mistress is not a small white lie. It is a devastating scandal which can mean he ruins relationships with his children for life. Very very big lies and bad handling of the situation led to this, not tiny points swapping offences which 300,000 people have done in the last 10 years.

Dooasyouwood Tue 12-Mar-13 07:19:37

The judge said VP had a:

"controlling, manipulative and devious side,"

'Side' is the important word, he didn't say she was, she had a side.

If the judge was sexist I think he'd have seen VP as the victim, much as like a lot of posters, she'd have been treated more leniently as the little women who couldn't do wrong unless her bullying husband made her do it.

It is noticeable that some posters are so ingrained in this men oppressors, women victim mode that they can't believe she's done anything wrong.

Does misogynistic have a different meaning for me, I thought it meant the hatred of women.

Is there any evidence the judge hates women.

carlajean Tue 12-Mar-13 07:56:18

math anxiety so you feel that VP wasn't motivated by revenge? what were her motives then remorse?

olgaga Tue 12-Mar-13 08:18:05

It is noticeable that some posters are so ingrained in this men oppressors, women victim mode that they can't believe she's done anything wrong.

We can disagree as to whether the critical and highly personal remarks directed at Pryce by the judge were misogynist or not - but you are overstating the case here. No-one is saying Pryce has done nothing wrong, or that as a woman she should have been treated more leniently.

However, it is the case that Huhne had a previous conviction and a three month ban for a motoring offence, whereas Pryce had a completely clean record.

Commenting, Stephen Parkinson of Kingsley Napley LLP said Huhne’s sentence was ‘inevitable’ and in line with other cases. But he accepted that many will regard Pryce’s sentence as ‘harsh’. ‘Vicky Pryce did not benefit from this offence and probably committed it to help save her marriage,’ he said. ‘Prison will achieve nothing in her case.’

tiggytape Tue 12-Mar-13 08:32:03

I think VP was motivated by revenge when she told her story but this is irrelevant to the offence itself.
The offence she has gone to prison for is signing a piece of paper 10 years ago to say was driving a speeding car when she wasn’t. This is the bit where she perverted the course of justice and broke the law and this was not motivated by revenge.
She says she felt forced to sign. The jury disagree and say she signed it willingly. Either way – she is in prison for signing the thing. Her motives 10 years after the offence was committed make no difference to whether she committed an offence when she signed that paper.

Subsequently telling the world about it to land her husband in trouble may not have been the brightest idea but isn't illegal in any way and has no bearing at all on her state of mind when she actually broke the law. Her husband however was speeding, stood to gain from the offence of covering this up, lied about it, attempted to use any technicality to have the court case dropped and ran up huge bills for the tax payer in doing so and only pleaded guilty in a cynical, last minute decision to try to lessen his sentence knowing as he did that he was guilty all along. I don’t think he should have got any credit for a guilty plea that is only entered at the last minute when every legal trick in the book has been tried and failed.

duchesse Tue 12-Mar-13 08:57:56

I agree Xenia, that interview made me feel sick. Never mind that his costs totalled over £100,000 and hers £31,000, he didn't miss having a quick dig at her over ruining their children's chances of getting on the housing ladder. He really is a complete tosser.

duchesse Tue 12-Mar-13 09:00:33

And, yet again, she was NOT being tried for trying exact revenge. So she ought not to have been sentenced for it. I feel that she was. And I hope she appeals.

higgle Tue 12-Mar-13 09:05:23

Olgaga and others - After he had nominated her as driver there was a way out. All they had to do - she could have done it herself - was to contact the police and say there had been an error in submitting the form and that he had been the driver and could they correct this and issue the speeding proceedings accordingly. I'm sure matters would have had a line drawn under them at that stage then.

My view is that the judge was always going to award the same sentence to each, but for different reasons. He set the whole thing in motion but needed a small discount for guilty plea; she pleaded not guilty but was slightly less culpable. I would not have thought the sentences are appealable, and certainly not in her case on the evidence as the Court of Appeal is very reluctant to interfere with a jury's finding of fact - it has to be totally off this planet for it to be deemed unsafe.

Interesting to see Huhne will be paying his team at presumably astronomical fees to challenge the application for costs. The message still hasn't really sunk in for him.

limitedperiodonly Tue 12-Mar-13 09:17:13

Huhne will be paying his team at presumably astronomical fees to challenge the application for costs.

Really? You can see who's the economist in their family.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now