Vicky Pryce is guilty

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


moondog Thu 07-Mar-13 15:07:16

Not much of a surprise eh?
Boy, she really hates him doesn't she?

TheReturnoftheSmartArse Thu 07-Mar-13 15:09:33

God, they're as bad as each other, those two.

You're right, Moondog , she REALLY REALLY hates him! But I don't really blame her!

UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea Thu 07-Mar-13 15:10:05

I'm surprised, perhaps naively so.

So they didn't believe she had been coerced?

He is a vile little man angry

Lottapianos Thu 07-Mar-13 15:13:55

I'm surprised too Unexpected. I could well imagine him coercing her into doing what she was told. Mind you, that's only based on what I've read in papers and seen on TV so hopefully the jury knew better!

moondog Thu 07-Mar-13 15:19:01

Their poor children.
Their arrogance and selfishness has destroyed a family.

CardinalRichelieu Thu 07-Mar-13 15:20:20

Well, that was very bad tactics on her part wasn't it? Grassing your husband up out of revenge, when doing so also puts YOU at risk of being convicted for the same thing... I can't decide whether it's more like a Greek tragedy or a Rumpolesque farce

moondog Thu 07-Mar-13 15:21:25

I think she knew form the start she would go down if he did but it was a price she was willing to play.

CardinalRichelieu Thu 07-Mar-13 15:24:34

Well that is ridiculous if so. What's wrong with considering yourself well rid of a loser husband and getting on with your life. I feel especially sorry for their son Peter, having to hear all about how his father wanted him aborted. I don't think I could ever let my child find that out, even if it meant compromising my case (not that I would ever have gone to court in the first place).

UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea Thu 07-Mar-13 15:34:53

I wonder if there is anyone else who has taken speeding points for their partner who's now bricking it. It puts you in a very vulnerable place to lie on behalf of someone else.

I do feel sorry for her and like Lottapianos can only hope the jury knew what they were doing.

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 15:34:57

I guess that's why he pleaded guilty at the last minute. I think he shouldn't be shown any leniency for having pleaded at the 11th hour- it's still a massive waste of police and CPS time. It's my belief that he engineered his tactics to maximum effect for her to suffer greater consequences than him. I also think he a complete and utter little shit.

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 15:41:18

Furthermore he had more to gain than her from the transfer of points so it would incomprehensible if he received a lesser sentence. I highly doubt that she forced him to transfer the points to her. He didn't exactly rush forwards to take the rightful blame either. In fact he used the transfer to get at his wife later. I am far more inclined to believe her than him and I hope she appeals.

CardinalRichelieu Thu 07-Mar-13 15:42:32

But did not the whole thing only come to light in the first place because she reported him out of revenge? I would've thought that if you take points for your partner and they are accepted, your chances of getting caught out later are very slim. The DVLA or whatever are hardly going to go back over thousands of old cases trying to work it out unless someone grasses someone else up.

Pagwatch Thu 07-Mar-13 15:47:31

She decided to go to the press to nail him because of his affair.

I think they are as bad as each other.

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 15:49:05

Vengefulness is not a crime! Maybe morally it's not very clear-cut and she did court trouble by doing it, but she was being honest in a legal sense by reporting the points transfer. I wonder whether the real problem here is that she tried to get her own back for his despicable behaviour towards her. She is essentially being punished for trying to do the right thing, albeit 10 years late. So to my mind there is NO WAY he should get off more lightly since he is the one who actually did the crime. Being the registered keeper of the car, he was the one who would have filled in the (incorrect) details about who was driving at the time. Therefore, he committed the crime. All she did was keep quiet about it at the time and not drop him in it at back then.

MechanicalTheatre Thu 07-Mar-13 15:51:25

To be honest, I can really see why she grassed him up. I imagine she made a ton of sacrifices for his career, as politicians partners tend to do. He then had an affair and didn't have the decency to tell her til it was about to be splashed all over the papers.

Of course the right thing to do is maintain your dignity. But I can imagine it's very tempting to just want to fuck the person over.

EchoBitch Thu 07-Mar-13 15:53:18

Didn't he get caught driving while using his phone only weeks after the speeding points.
He's an arrogant man and i can see why she took the points even though it was foolish (and wrong) to do so.
So two criminal offenses within weeks.
He had no business being an MP.

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 15:53:53

I guess what I'm saying is that she's being punished imo for being a vengeful woman, not a subservient drone who would have left well alone and not even attempted to get her own back. I can totally see why she would have wanted to get own back as well! I hope her legal team appeals.

Xenia Thu 07-Mar-13 15:54:32

She was naive. She also should never have given in to his fait accompli on the points and should have pulled the form from his hand, said - not on your life mate - if your MP career is destroyed your look out. That will teach you not to lie and cheat and speed.

What is very clear is that the real loser in Huhne as he could not wait until a divorce to keep his trousers up so will now have destroyed his relationships with his children for life. He reaped what he sowed. I hope the ex lesbian is worth it.

EchoBitch Thu 07-Mar-13 15:57:48

16 days later he got a six month ban for using his phone.

Whilst driving a car with personal number plates.

That says arrogant to me.

NicholasTeakozy Thu 07-Mar-13 15:59:34

I'm not really surprised, just a little saddened that he has been believed ahead of her, given that he lied consistently until the opening day of the original trial.

KatieMiddleton Thu 07-Mar-13 15:59:54

He is revolting the way he exploited his family during the election all the while shagging his PR.

I feel very sorry for her. She was shat on from a great height and probably emotionally abused. The abortion stuff was just awful.

I hope she gets a very lenient sentence because she's the one looking after that fractured family and they need her.

moondog Thu 07-Mar-13 16:00:50

Didn't the new girlfriend try to sue a paper for writing about her?
Don't know how that panned out.

I agree with KatieM, I actually feel sorry for her, he treated her and his family appallingly, I hope her sentance is very light, her family absolutely need her.

Appeal, Ms Pryce! What a vile pig of a man everyone above is right. How the Hell do these types end up as MPs? angry

I feel pretty sorry for her. Perhaps taking the points wasn't the smartest course of action but I don't think she deserved this.

TheDevilsAdvocaat Thu 07-Mar-13 16:08:43

Before we all leap to the poor woman's defence perhaps it is worth remembering that she originally claimed that one of his aides, Jo White I think, took the points for him. By doing so she was accusing a completely innocent person of a crime. She didn't do her research. Jo White didn't even have a driving license. Absolutely no sympathy for her or him.

I'm not surprised either. They are as bad as each other. Well maybe not equally bad but I think the guilty verdict is probably the right one. She committed a crime. The jury are happy that she wasn't coerced so that means she knew what she was doing and was prepared to take the consequences. She lied as much as he did. She didn't do the speeding but she is equally culpable of perverting the course of justice.

He is a horrible little man but she inflicted even more hurt on her children that she really didn't need to inflict. She may not have ruined her relationship with them as he has, but they know things now they didn't really need to know. She would have been better off keeping quiet. It might not have got her revenge, it might not have got her exh sacked but it would have protected her children.

CardinalRichelieu Thu 07-Mar-13 16:18:11

They BOTH committed a crime. Taking someone's points is a crime. So it's not true to say he committed the crime and she kept quiet about it.

She claims to have made big sacrifices for his career but I doubt the jury were convinced as she is very successful and well-paid. They both have extreme hubris in common.

He is an absolute tool though, firstly for trying to get someone to take his points, then getting banned anyway, then spending half a million on a top access to defend him and pleading guilty at the last minute.

If I was a child of theirs I would of course be angry about the affair, but I would find the splashing around of hurtful private details by my mother much harder to deal with emotionally. I'm not sure my relationship with my mother would be able to survive that.

dopeysheep Thu 07-Mar-13 16:18:47

Neither of them have exactly covered themselves in glory have they? She allowed her son to learn that his dad wanted him aborted, in order to gain sympathy for herself. Horrible, both of them.
Devil's I didn't know she tried to pin the blame on someone else but it doesn't surprise me.
They both come across as squirmy insects exposed to the light. Bleurch.

CardinalRichelieu Thu 07-Mar-13 16:18:54

Top q c not access

tiggytape Thu 07-Mar-13 16:31:52

I was surprised too and feel sorry for their children. The son already blamed CH for 'putting pressure' on his mum (as the son described it - obviously the jury didn't believe that was true) and dragging her into all this (as the son saw it - again the jury obviously disagreed that she'd felt forced to do it).
Now both parents may end up in jail and I am not sure how that will help mend the son's relationship with the father. Not that this is a factor for a jury to consider of course - it is just a shame that it means the son may never forgive his father now.

carlajean Thu 07-Mar-13 16:32:13

she perverted the course of justice, perhaps thinking that the plea of marital coercian would get her off the hook. I'm glad it didn't. I'm also looking forward to seeing how constance Briscoe gets on when she's faced with the same charge, as seems likely.

LineRunner Thu 07-Mar-13 16:33:25

I don't think the new girlfriend got the privacy ban she was after, because the judge said she'd aleady put herself in the public eye.

mindosa Thu 07-Mar-13 16:33:53

I think she sowed the seeds of her own discontent.

Of course I think he is dreadful but that is no excuse for how she has behaved. I doubt revenge feels very sweet

MechanicalTheatre Thu 07-Mar-13 16:35:00

The papers are fucking horrible about his new girlfriend.

OK, she was the OW and that's shitty, but Jesus, they are vicious.

CardinalRichelieu Thu 07-Mar-13 16:43:08

Watching the news just now. Apparently the journalist at the Times told Pryce that if she told the papers about Huhne it would bring him down with only a 'minor risk' to her. I wonder if Pryce actually checked with a lawyer just how 'minor' the risk of her getting in trouble was - looks like she didn't....

BerylStreep Thu 07-Mar-13 16:55:29

She didn't try to do the right thing. She didn't report it to the police and tell them the truth. She leaked it to a newspaper and fitted someone else up for it. Not the same thing at all.

Mechanical They are vicious about Carina because she is a right piece of work. She has sold stories about virtually every politician's sex life, then lied about it. She is a professional mud slinger, who then tried to sue the newspapers she had sold sex stories to. I'll post a link to the libel judgement, which she lost. The judge basically said she was a lying toe rag. That's why the journos are being vicious about her.

FairPhyllis Thu 07-Mar-13 16:56:18

I am quite surprised. IMO the fact that she was motivated by revenge for the affair shouldn't have come into it - it should have been about what happened at the time when she took the points.

I wonder if there is an element of the jury not believing that a professional woman could be subjected to EA and coercion.

JakeBullet Thu 07-Mar-13 16:57:54

Tbh I am not surprised....or that sympathetic for a woman who tells her child that his Dad wanted him aborted. I mean how fucked up must he be as a result of learning that bit of information which he really didn't need to know.

I think these are two people who work the system to their advantage all the time until one walks away and the other vows revenge. Nice.

My, possibly poorly considered opinion on the whole thing, is it's a hell of a lot of fuss all round about nothing much.
I mean everyone goes over the speed limit occasionally, it's more or less a fact of life with driving in our society. And the whole thing has just ridiculously spiraled out of control in the most crazy way.

Mind you I'm strongly against speeding having lost good friends in 2 RTA's.
I'm a careful driver.

I agree too that I'd never tell one of my DC's that they were originally unwanted by either of their parents. Not that that was the case in our circumstances.

yellowbrickrd Thu 07-Mar-13 17:01:19

I feel sorry for her in the sense that she allowed her rage at the affair to get the better of her judgement - she certainly won't be the first to do that, it is a pretty human failing. The tragedy here is that it started a catastrophic series of consequences that has taken the whole family down with it.

The marital coercion defence was never going to wash - for the sake of the children she should have pleaded guilty as well and got the thing over with instead of letting the media feast on it day after day.

Viviennemary Thu 07-Mar-13 17:01:24

I think she is at least as bad as he is. I just don't feel sorry for her I'm afraid but I don't know all the ins and outs of the case. To me she came over as a force to be reckoned with and not some weak easily manipulated person.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 17:05:18

Richly deserved. Despicable woman. There were literally no depths she would'nt stoop to to get herself off. She'd have been much better off admitting it at the first opportunity and having the decency to apologise.
She and her odious husband are the epitomy of what is wrong with the establishment today in this country today.

LineRunner Thu 07-Mar-13 17:05:31

Watching Channel 5 news - they are alleging Nick Clegg and Vince Cable might have known about it all.

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 17:05:52

The only thing she ought to have done was destroy the paper when he asked her to sign it. If she had refused to sign it and instead torn it into little bits he would have had to ask for another one and would have had time to find some other sap to take the blame.

Yes she has shown herself to be vengeful since then but if you compare that with his list of actually crimes, he is a heck of more guilty than she is.

Her ONLY crime was to sign that piece of paper.

He did committed the original driving offence.
He filled in the form wrongly.
He signed as being the truth.
He wasted police time by lying, and lied right up to the moment of being in the dock.

Her telling the truth years later may have calculated and vengeful, but it was not a crime. I would hope that our courts of law would judge and sentence people on the facts of the case, not on their feelings about them.

RedToothBrush Thu 07-Mar-13 17:08:04

I wonder if there is anyone else who has taken speeding points for their partner who's now bricking it. It puts you in a very vulnerable place to lie on behalf of someone else.

I used to work for someone who took points for his partner as she would have lost her license otherwise. I was not particularly thrilled with being told because of the position it put me in, although there was no way I could prove anything. I did think about it, but eventually decided against it mainly because I felt the police wouldn't act on it or take it seriously because of the lack of evidence.

He was very pissed off at the time, but more because he had to go on a speed awareness course and he had to take time off work (hence why I knew) than because he took the points. He agreed to it since the alternative of her loosing her license would have a massive impact on him and their family life because he would have had to take on more responsibilities as a result. He didn't feel like he had any choice in the matter and felt pressured to do it. So I do not think it is uncommon for partners to take points for each other and I don't think its restricted to women taking points for men. They do it because they think they can get away with it as it relies on those involved admitting liability (because frankly they can).

I hope that this case makes people think twice though. So because so few cases like this have any chance of being successful, I do think she had to be found guilty to show that its a serious issue and to act as a deterrent.

The woman involved in the case I'm aware of, is a danger on the roads. She had got 3 point two weeks earlier and really should have been thinking especially since her other 6 points had been racked up in a similar place and she was well aware there was a camera there and the police had been stopping people regularly.

I am no longer on friendly terms with this guy thankfully. I hope he gets done for one of his dodgy actions eventually. He's overdue to be caught for something. They are no longer together though; I'm not sure why, but I doubt this can have helped.

LineRunner Thu 07-Mar-13 17:08:09

Everyone denies everything.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 17:09:11

The bit that gets me is she tried to resurrect some almost dead and enormously old-fashioned defence of marital coercion despite having been happy to be feted for years as the capable woman in a man's world. Fear of Holloway can do funny things to a person I guess, especially if they are completely unprincipled, which she quite clearly is

carlajean Thu 07-Mar-13 17:13:19

duchess aren't you forgetting that she tried to pin it on her husband's aid?

CardinalRichelieu Thu 07-Mar-13 17:17:00

Huhne is going to have to pay the CPSs costs as well as his own, will be over a million altogether

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 17:17:12

She only said that to a reporter, not to the police. If she had said it to the police, it would have been a crime. As she said to a reporter, it is only a lie.

Springdiva Thu 07-Mar-13 17:18:43

I would like to know how VP and CH got together (because I am a nosy cow).

Did they have an affair then VP left her first DH, was she divorced and CH met and married her, did VP's first DH have an affair which resulted in divorce.

Just nosy cos it would effect her feelings towards CH's affair and maybe make her more determined for revenge.

But duchesse the fact that he was worse than her doesn't make her any the less guilty of the crime she is accused of committing. She hasn't 'only' signed a piece of paper. She signed it knowing she was perverting the course of justice and that what she was doing was illegal. He may have signed the form to say that everything on it was truthful but then so did she. It wasn't any different. She wasn't being tried for speeding - that is kind of irrelevant. She was tried for lying and was rightfully found guilty.

Hopefully the pair of them will now disappear into obscurity where they belong.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 17:20:16

There is now of course Polyy Toynbee and a parade of other idiotic lefties on the radio going on about how "terribly sad" it all is. personally I don't think it's sad when disgusting liars get outed as such. It's justice working as it should, which, when it brings down Jeffrey Archer and other people of whom Polly disapproves, she thinks is a jolly good thing.
I love the Leftie establishment, I really do. No group of people are unintentionally so amusing.

slipshodsibyl Thu 07-Mar-13 17:22:56

She took the points because she was a s ambitious for her husband as he was for himself and did not want his driving record to impact on his career. To suggest she was coerced is not credible. The alleged involvement of Constance Briscoe, someone who should adhere to the highest standards of behaviour is just awful.

To the poster who thinks it a fuss about nothing - there is far too much fuss about the affairs, revenge etc and, as far as I can see, far too little about the digraceful and illegal conduct of these horrible people.

NuclearStandoff Thu 07-Mar-13 17:28:26

I think it is the right verdict.

She was a tough, independent, successful business woman. There is no way she was 'coerced' into doing it. Pressured, maybe, but if she had really felt it was wrong she still would have said No.

And what slipshod said - ambitious to be the wife of a successful MP.

NuclearStandoff Thu 07-Mar-13 17:30:31

And by the way Karlos I'm proud to consider myself what you'd call a 'Leftie' you should be wary of making generalisations.

mrsshackleton Thu 07-Mar-13 17:32:28

Of course she is guilty as sin. The whole point is she didn't do the right thing. She didn't go to the police, she approached two newspapers. With the help of some extremely high-powered friends.

He has committed a worse crime than her, that doesn't mean she's innocent.

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 17:36:40

I'm not saying she's not guilty. It's just that everyone is cutting Mr some slack since he hasn't been in the media so much since his 11th admission of guilt. People are quite conveniently forgetting that the reason he didn't have a trial, and therefore didn't get splashed all over the papers for the last 2 months, is because he is actually GUILTY of all the crimes I listed below.

I would be horrified if he were granted a reduced sentence because of his admission of guilt and that despite having committed more crimes than her they both ended up with the same sentence. Except she'd also have had a trial by media.

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 17:37:03

*11th hour

drownangels Thu 07-Mar-13 17:39:25

Not one t'mend other!

wannaBe Thu 07-Mar-13 17:40:33

no sympathy at all, why on earth would anyone have sympathy for this woman? She had no intention of doing the right thing, she went to the press not the police, not because she wanted to do the right thing but because she wanted revenge. Presumably she thought the papers would tear CH and the woman she tried to pin it on apart without ever considering that what she had actually done was a crime punishable by a jail sentence.

He is equally guilty but this isn't about him - he will hopefully serve his time accordingly but so should she.

vile woman who was prepared to stoop to any low to get away with and justify her revenge, including hurting her own children into the bargain. Women like her make me sick.

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 17:41:25

I rest my case, m'lud.

Whose cutting him any slack?! I don't see that at all. We are talking about her because she was found guilty today. His conviction is old news and we all know he is a dispicable toe rag. I don't get why you are cutting her slack? She invited the media to take part in proceedings. She didn't go to the police, she went to the papers. You reap what you sow. If she got trial by media that is because she engineered it that way. She clearly didn't think out the consequences very well though, did she?

hackmum Thu 07-Mar-13 17:48:43

I do have a small amount of sympathy with her, in that (if her story is true) she initially refused to take the points, and then he sent off the form with her name on it, so she had to decide whether to take the points or shop him to the authorities. So that put her in a difficult position.

Obviously I don't have massive amounts of sympathy for her, as what she did was still a crime, and she could still have said No. And if she had then been motivated by guilt, she could have gone and confessed all to the police, instead of talking to a news reporter.

Of the two of them, I think hers is the lesser offence, so I would hope she gets a slightly shorter sentence.

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 17:50:20

I feel she is getting a lot more flak than she ought to on here because she is a woman. Where is the equivalent "Chris Huhne is a despicable toerag" thread? Has there been one?

limitedperiodonly Thu 07-Mar-13 17:55:39

duchesse there were plenty of posts calling Huhne a despicable toerag at the time of his guilty plea.

There was a thread on here around the time of Pryce's first trial where a number of posters were sympathetic to her. It's a shame you missed it.

And she wasn't tried by the media. She was tried by a judge and found guilty by a jury.

Yes duchesse but it is "Mumsnet" - we like Mums to be nice and thoughtful to their kids smile

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 17:59:31

Ok fair enough then.

I bet you anything you like they get similar length sentences though.

BagWoman Thu 07-Mar-13 17:59:56

GOOD! I am so pleased.

Both horrible, arrogant people who think they are above the law.

I expect she will get a minor sentence- a fine or community service and he will get a token stay in clink.

Corygal Thu 07-Mar-13 18:01:46

Hmmm. I do believe marital coercion, but who could be keen on her trying to pin it on the other bird - Mrs Huhne did the same thing as Mr.

But she was provoked and in an impossible position. The only plus is that Mr must get longer in jug than his ex.

Neither of them likes the children much, do they.

Springdiva Thu 07-Mar-13 18:09:30

It's good we are reminded that you can't mess with the law and what first seemed a trivial offence has been dealt with correctly.

A bit like this one where the boy didn't turn up for jury duty, I doubt anyone realised it was an inprisonable offence.

Dromedary Thu 07-Mar-13 18:10:00

I'm sure loads of people have acted the same way in taking points for a spouse. Most people don't think that speeding is a big deal - many people speed slightly as a matter of course if they know that there is no speed camera watching them. And if they end up losing their licence for it it seems a very high price to pay.
It's a bit unrealistic to expect someone to shop her long term husband and father of her children to the police because he put her name down on a speeding form. Would you do that to your husband? And probably end your marriage because of it?

BerylStreep Thu 07-Mar-13 18:10:36

Yes, I think it would have been very different had she approached the police and reported it, and her role in it.

She still would have got her publicity and revenge, but more likely to have evaded prosecution.

I'm sure her family are in shock. I do feel sorry for her, but not what she has done.

slipshodsibyl Thu 07-Mar-13 18:15:24

Dromedary, I think m any people feel as you do but why? Regular speeding convictions are fairly serious offences. These people could afford a driver. Where are society's morals that we think it is ok to pick and choose which laws we obey?

I don't think she is getting flak because she is a woman, she is getting it because she broke the law and because she dragged her family through the papers and the courts when they were already badly damaged by her exh.

Springdiva - having just done jury service, they tell you on all the forms and information that it is an offence not to turn up and that it is punishable by prison. There is no way, if he bothered to read the forms, including ones that you sign to say you have read and understood your responsibilities, that he wouldn't have known that. Although we don't often hear of people going to prison I doubt many get caught out like this.

SinisterBuggyMonth Thu 07-Mar-13 18:24:28

The pair if them are pretty repulsive but she takes the biscuit for playing out there frankly unintersting problems in the papers. Letting her son know his Dad wanted him aborted beggars belief. A the cost of 3 trials for 2 people is disgusting.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 18:25:16

There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but years of observation of the political scene - occasionally at close quarters - means I'm fairly convinced my generalisations about the leftie establishment are fair, nuclear. if you count yourslef a member of this class all I can say is you're keeping some pretty dubious company. I look forward to hearing your impressions of Pentonville.

Springdiva Thu 07-Mar-13 18:26:24

they tell you on all the forms and information that it is an offence not to turn up and that it is punishable by prison

Thanks for that BigBoobie, I hadn't bothered to read the news articles property realised that.

Uppermid Thu 07-Mar-13 18:31:58

I don't believe for a second that she was forced to take the points.

I also don't believe she decided to tell the truth now because it was the right thing to do. She did it because she was angry, upset, humiliated etc and wanted revenge.

rufussmum Thu 07-Mar-13 18:36:33

Look. She has been found guilty of perverting the cause of justice. She is no different to anyone else. She deserves the appropriate punsihment for the crime she committed. This is 21st Century, women are supposed to be equal. It's a bit lame to plead that she was forced into breaking the law. No sympathy here.

NuclearStandoff Thu 07-Mar-13 18:38:18

Karlos are you Anne Widdecombe in disguise?

I am happy to say I have friends at both ends of the political spectrum, but would never dream of insulting those I disagree with as being 'dubious company'.

TheFallenNinja Thu 07-Mar-13 18:39:27

I hope they end up in the same cell.

TheFallenNinja Thu 07-Mar-13 18:40:34

This has to be one of the best examples of mutually assured destruction I've ever seen.

limitedperiodonly Thu 07-Mar-13 18:41:24

I admit I felt sorry for her outside court. She looked sick. I couldn't take any delight in it. I still think it was the right verdict though.

I even felt a little bit sorry for Huhne. Not much. Even though I wouldn't have done it I could understand someone thinking: 'How could something I thought was so simple have exploded so catastrophically?'

Sometimes the kindness of my heart runs away with me. It's not likely to get very far though grin

mumzy Thu 07-Mar-13 18:44:36

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" Huhne should have thought about that one!

RabidCarrot Thu 07-Mar-13 18:44:41

Hell have no fury like a woman scorned, but this came back to bite her on the bu big time, she was wrong to lie for him.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 18:45:22

You are missing the point, nuclear. My criticism is not of people who hold left wing views generally (at least, not at the moment). my criticism is of a wing of the political establishment which prides itself on its terribly inclusive, compassionate, open-minded etc etc views but is in terms of its personal conduct pretty disgusting.

RabidCarrot Thu 07-Mar-13 18:45:42


limitedperiodonly Thu 07-Mar-13 18:47:54

I think scorned men can be quite destructive too mumzy. The courts see far more of them.

NuclearStandoff Thu 07-Mar-13 18:48:33

Oh I see.

But the right-wing doesn't pretend to be inclusive or compassionate, so it doesn't matter if the personal conduct of individuals sometimes falls short?

lottieandmia Thu 07-Mar-13 18:48:38

I feel more sorry for her - he is horrid. Before the first trial I thought maybe she'd be found not guilty. But there must have been evidence she did it willingly for them to find her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Apparently looks likely they will both get a custodial sentence.

Chubfuddler Thu 07-Mar-13 18:48:50

I can easily believe she was coerced, but then many people have found it hard to believe that a professional woman, a solicitor like me, can be a victim of domestic violence. But I am.

Being a professional woman isn't a suit of armour.

lottieandmia Thu 07-Mar-13 18:50:47

She must really hate him to do this, knowing that she would be incriminated as well.

higgle Thu 07-Mar-13 18:54:25

What makes it even worse is that having got themselves into a situation where it was clear they had brokeen the law they both tried to get away with it, he by wasting lots of court time and running up enormous costs by saying the case should never have been brought and she by advancing this strange defence that given her background was never going to work. One of her friends speaking on radio 4 this evening said she had been badly served by her legal team and I think he was right.

Zavi Thu 07-Mar-13 18:55:12

I'm really pee'd off that she has been found guilty. I mean I know she was, really, guilty of perverting the course of justice but he instigated all of this.

Woman: it's not at all unusual for women to put their husbands/children above themselves. It's pretty typical to have that happen day-to-day actually and there's been no acknowledgement of this from the jury as far as I can see.

I don't think justice has been done here. I think she should have got off. I hope she can appeal. If only because I feel so sorry for their poor kids. She is clearly the better parent and I suspect their kids will need her more than they need him at this difficult time.

I'm a bit worried that Chris Huhne will be treated more leniently than her when it comes to sentencing. After all he pleaded guilty so that it never needed to go to trial.

Anyone know if his guilty plea entitles him to more lenient sentencing?

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 18:59:20

"But the right-wing doesn't pretend to be inclusive or compassionate, so it doesn't matter if the personal conduct of individuals sometimes falls short? "

i'm not quite sure what this is trying to egt at, but if you are wondering whether I prefer those who are upfront about being unprincipled wankers to those who try and convince themselves (and everyone else) that they are not, the answer is yes.
The Polly Toynbees of this world, who leap to defend in their friends vices which they have no hesitation in condemning in those with whom they disagree politcally (and don't hesitate to vilify personally) are revolting hypocrites. And stupid too, because they cannot perceive how transparent they are to everyone else. but as I say, they do have a certain comedy value.

higgle Thu 07-Mar-13 19:02:26

Normally a guilty plea gets you a lesser setence but he wasted so much court time with his spurious arguments that the case should be throw out that I suspect he won't. You also only gert much credit for a guilty plea if it is "timely" and the case was prepared and ready to roll when he announced his change of plea.

There has been comment today that people feel sorry for her because once he had nominated her as driver she had little option other than to go along wit it, but he could have changed his information and indicated he had been mistaken and he was the driver on that particular day and nothing would have come of this.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 19:06:17

I think we have to face the fact that if Huhne had been able to attempt to resurrect some ancient defence to save his sorry arse he'd have done it so i agree, minimal credit for guilty plea there.
If she had any brains she'd have realised the "husband made me" line would have played much better as mitigation than as defence. (a) it wouldn;t have faced anything like the same level of challenge. (b) she could have combined it with coming clean and feeling re,morse. Might even have won her a non-custodial penalty if she'd played it right. Stupid, stupid woman.

mathanxiety Thu 07-Mar-13 19:08:59

I think she was tried for the crime of being 'bitter' and the misdemeanour of having a professional career, both gendered offences.

I agree with KatieMiddleton's post.

The pair if them are pretty repulsive but she takes the biscuit for playing out there frankly unintersting problems in the papers. Letting her son know his Dad wanted him aborted beggars belief. A the cost of 3 trials for 2 people is disgusting.
This is a good example of what she was tried for.

Zavi Thu 07-Mar-13 19:13:13

Thanks, higgle

I'd forgotten about how he tried to deny it until he was completely backed into a corner. The epitome of arrogance.

There's a glimmer of hope then.

I really dislike the way there has been this presumption, this attitude in court that, since she is an intelligent woman with a good job and a good income, that this should make her immune to the pressure that he (no doubt) put her under.

I mean this attitude that women with good jobs and good incomes are "rotweillers" who should be able to stick up for themselves hmm. It really is too bad.

We've still got such a long way to go...

KatieMiddleton Thu 07-Mar-13 19:17:37

I find some of these comments about her professional status being a reason that she could not have been in abusive relationship ignorant of the fact that what goes on outside the home is not always an indication of what is going on within it.

I assume the jury are correct in their assertion that marital coercion cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt but I think only a fool would suggest that there definitely cannot have been marital coercion because she was a successful professional woman.

Fwiw her defence would have been informed by her barrister.

chicaguapa Thu 07-Mar-13 19:22:10

I also don't believe she decided to tell the truth now because it was the right thing to do. She did it because she was angry, upset, humiliated etc and wanted revenge.

^ This

creighton Thu 07-Mar-13 19:24:22

don't worry about vicky pryce. after she has served her sentence and put a brave remorseful face on it, she will get a 2 page spread in the guardian giving her side of the story. she is from a protected part of society, she'll be okay.

Yes, but it doesn't make any difference if she is a woman or not. The wronged party doing something as an act of vengence and not to get justice will be called bitter regardless of whether that person was a man or a woman.

If it is now a gender issue, if anything she made it that way by using the defence of marital coercion. Would any man use that? I very much doubt it. It was a cynical attempt to make out she was wronged by her husband and that as a poor little wife she had no option but to get along with it. The jury didn't believe her and regardless of what we read in the papers and whatever hatchet job they may or may have not done on her, we have to accept that she wasn't coerced and that therefore what she did was a crime.

As for her being the better parent, that is laughable when you consider the mess she created by going to the papers and washing all the family's dirty linen public. She should have put her children ahead of her desire for revenge and she didn't.

Dromedary Thu 07-Mar-13 19:26:18

slipshod - I'm not a supporter of speeding, as it can cause accidents. Having said that, many drivers go a bit over the speed limit where they think that a) it is safe to do so, b) they will not get caught. Many also do so because they did not realise what the speed limit is. In regions like Avon the speed limit changes every 5 seconds and there are millions of speeding cameras - this is presumably in order to raise money for the council. It is easy to be caught twice in ten minutes, when there has been no intention to speed. Speeding in these kinds of cases is not what I would call a serious crime. Driving a lot over the speed limit intentionally and when you are not sure that it is safe to do so is different. In the case of Huhne, he is an arrogant shit, but if I remember rightly he was not very much above the speed limit and it was late at night and in the countryside, so he probably made a judgement that it was safe (though not legal).
I don't sympathise with either of them much. Huhne lied and lied again, and exposed his bad relationship with his son to the public. Pryce was very manipulatively out to get him as viciously as she could, having made a careful judgement that she would get away with it. And if she got away with arguing marital coercion, which woman wouldn't? Far too many married women would get away with crimes.

SinisterBuggyMonth Thu 07-Mar-13 19:34:04

Right so if he hadn't left for Ow she still would have confessed all to a newspaper. So many years later. Yeah right. She was wholly motivated by bitterness, the kind that spares no thought for her son finding out some thing that hurtful. The pair of them show a blatant disregard for the general public, him for his disgusting record of speeding and her for using the national media to air the families dirty laundry. Which is worrying when these are the people in power.

And although I am a proud lefty, Polly Toynbee lost her credibility the minute she advocated voting Lib Dem in the last election.

hackmum Thu 07-Mar-13 19:42:12

BigBoobiedBertha: "If it is now a gender issue, if anything she made it that way by using the defence of marital coercion. Would any man use that? I very much doubt it."

A man couldn't use it - it's a defence open only to women, and wives at that. So a cohabiting woman couldn't use it, and a woman in a civil partnership couldn't use it, and a man couldn't use it.

It's basically an archaic defence - a remnant of law left over from a time when very many women were under their husbands' thumbs. But I imagine the reason she used it was because it was the only defence open to her, and her legal team would have advised her to do so. She had already foolishly admitted to the offence in a national newspaper. Once she was arrested and charged, she had two options: she could either plead guilty (but argue that there were mitigating circumstances); or she could, in desperation, use the only legal defence open to her. Presumably her lawyers advised her to choose the latter.

hackmum Thu 07-Mar-13 19:46:20

Also, I'm a bit like limitedperiod, in that I'm capable of feeling sorry for almost anybody, however dreadful they are. I do feel a bit sorry even for Huhne as well as for Pryce, in that the mess they have got themselves into is disproportionate to the crime committed. I disapprove of speeding, and I disapprove of taking someone else's points (I would never do it myself) and yet these are both crimes that thousands of people, I would guess, commit all the time. They rarely have their careers ruined and the terrible stories of their personal lives splashed all over the newspapers. Of course they have brought this on themselves, but that makes it all the worse somehow.

FairPhyllis Thu 07-Mar-13 19:47:02

I thought at the time of the trial that her defence should have included argument that professional women are not immune from domestic abuse. I think most people don't really understand abuse and would look at an otherwise privileged woman and assume she couldn't possibly be a victim of abuse. This is not the case. I don't understand how her children's evidence that he bullied her could be ignored.

So what if she was motivated by revenge? What matters for the case is establishing what happened at the time she took the points, not whether we think she is a good mother or not. You shouldn't have to be a totally likable or admirable person for our justice system to be able to determine whether you are innocent or guilty on a particular fact. I agree with math - she's been convicted for not behaving like a good little woman, and having the temerity to mount a defence - how else could she do this in the context of abuse except by talking about the dynamics of her family?

limitedperiodonly Thu 07-Mar-13 19:51:34

If she had any brains she'd have realised the "husband made me" line would have played much better as mitigation than as defence.

I agree karlos. I thought she'd do this because I didn't realise there was the marital coercion defence. I forgot about the canoe woman who claimed it too. And that went well...

I thought she'd plead guilty and get a suspended sentence and lots more sympathy even though her first thought was to trash him in the papers.

She'd have had even more people on her side if she'd have gone straight to the police and put her hands up. Huhne would have still been ruined.

Someone mentioned Constance Briscoe upthread and the hope that she gets hers. I agree.This case has really brought it home to me that sometimes the 'cleverest' people act with far more stupidity than us little people. I suppose their connections make them feel immune to the consequences.

Zavi Thu 07-Mar-13 19:58:19

There's no question that Ms Pryce was motivated by bitterness. But why shouldn't she be bitter? Her husband was very, very deceitful, carrying on with another woman (whom he had introduced to her!) for years.

Then, when - and only when - he gets rumbled does he decide to come clean with her. And how does he do that? During the half-time break in a sports match that he's been watching on TV. Really, it beggars belief.

I think there's no doubt that she wanted to bring him down and I can understand where she's coming from. He treated her like a dog didn't he?

I do think that the jury (more men than women on it hmm) have reached the correct decision, based on the evidence, but I really don't think that justice has been served (yet anyway).

It's just occurred to me that Chris Huhne is probably sooooooo arrogant that he pled guilty to avoid facing a jury of his peers. No doubt he felt they were beneath him and he wanted to be in control of the inevitable outcome.

I just hope to God that he gets a much stiffer sentence than her.

God, I'm cross about this - and I don't even know them!

Chubfuddler Thu 07-Mar-13 20:06:18

She hasn't been sentenced yet, so the issue of coercion could yet work as mitigation in sentencing.

limitedperiodonly Thu 07-Mar-13 20:06:36

I can see why Huhne threw money at it in an attempt to get the case dismissed.

It's brave to own up if you think there's a chance you'll get away with it and I don't think most people are that brave. I'm not.

It's just that most of us don't have that much money so pleading guilty wouldn't have been noble, more the only option.

limitedperiodonly Thu 07-Mar-13 20:07:05

Ahh chub

yellowbrickrd Thu 07-Mar-13 20:12:03

Chub - if they've already found against the marital coercion defence how can it be used as mitigation? (genuine question - 'scuse my ignorance of the law your honour!)

Bartlebee Thu 07-Mar-13 20:13:31

I think her guilty verdict is the right one. They both did wrong here.

And I think this will really deter people from taking points for one another. We know several friends who have done this, all of them more than once.

Chubfuddler Thu 07-Mar-13 20:15:20

I'm not a criminal lawyer, I could be wrong. I thought it could come into mitigation even if dismissed as a total defence but perhaps not. I will consult professor google....

limitedperiodonly Thu 07-Mar-13 20:17:30

I don't think it will stop people taking points for each other. It will stop them owning up to it but there can't be many people who do that.

wannaBe Thu 07-Mar-13 20:18:37

"I really dislike the way there has been this presumption, this attitude in court that, since she is an intelligent woman with a good job and a good income, that this should make her immune to the pressure that he (no doubt) put her under." And I really hate the presumption that because she is a woman she is automatically a victim and deserving of sympathy because clearly she had no control over what she was doing.

Seriously, she's a woman therefore she must have been pressured? since when do women not have the power of thought? and she seemed to know what she was doing when she went to the press and not the police, didn't she? hmm Even if she was a poor little victim, this would have been her opportunity to go to the police, confess all and bring him down, but no that wasn't enough.

As for whoever said that she should be let off because she's the better parent, wtf?

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 20:20:58

Abusive men prefer strong women- more of a challenge. And people spouting this crap about hell having no fury like a woman scorned etc have clearly (and mercifully for them) never had to go through what my sister went through even after she got away from her abusive bastard of an ex.

QuanticoVirginia Thu 07-Mar-13 20:25:51

I so agree with wannabe. I actually cheered when I heard she had (quite rightly) been found guilty. I hate women who suddenly use the 'poor little wifey' defence when it suits them.

She lied at the time because she wanted to maintain the status quo and her nice little life as the wife of an MP. They're both as awful as each other and really do deserve each other.

Also they found that there was no maritial coercion so it can't be used as 'mitigation'. If they had believe her they'd have found her not guilty. She may only get credit because it would never have come to light if she hadn't open her big vindictive mouth so she may get a brownie point for that.

Chubfuddler Thu 07-Mar-13 20:26:04

There isn't an automatic presumption that she's a "poor little victim" (MN lacks an emoticon adequate to convey my thoughts on that comment btw but hmm will do) she said she was the victim of bullying and coercion by her husband.. In the spirit of We Believe You, I choose to believe her. Just because she failed to establish a total defence to these charges on that basis it does not mean that she was definitely not pressured by Hune.

Family responsibilities are a potentially mitigating factor in sentencing btw.

wannaBe Thu 07-Mar-13 20:26:23

"There's no question that Ms Pryce was motivated by bitterness. But why shouldn't she be bitter? Her husband was very, very deceitful, carrying on with another woman (whom he had introduced to her!) for years." but bitterness is not an excuse for going to the papers, trying to implicate and innocent party, and then claiming to have been a victim when she knew full well what she was doing.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 20:26:34

If Vicky Pryce could have claimed her husband was physically abusive I'm sure she wouldn't have hesitated. She couldn't. She was not, even on her own self-serving account, a victim of physical abuse.
as for the contention that she was tried for having a career and an abortion etc even on MN I have never read such unmitigated bollocks. None of these matters were in issue in the trial or even in the public domain until she put them there.

LineRunner Thu 07-Mar-13 20:28:04

The most furious, scorned Exes who care nothing for the effects of their hellish pride and anger on their families are not usually women. It's just that we have a different vocabularly for them.

Chubfuddler Thu 07-Mar-13 20:29:17

Indeed linerunner. Family annihilators, I believe they get called.

Of course that's portrayed as a tragedy rather than cold blooded murder.

wannaBe Thu 07-Mar-13 20:30:45

yes of course there's a presumption of poor little victim. It's the old "all men are bastards, all women are victims" attitude that is rife on mn. man commits crime, he's a bastard and should be sent down, woman commits crime, must be a victim of abuse/suffering from mental illness and deserving of sympathy.

if she was a victim of abuse, don't you think there would have been a lot more examples which she could have taken to the papers, which wouldn't have implicated her in a crime and seen her go to jail?

And to connect this vile woman with the "we believe you" line is frankly disgusting.

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 20:31:11

Domestic abuse also includes non-physical violence which is widely acknowledged to be at least as damaging as the physical kind.

Chubfuddler Thu 07-Mar-13 20:34:20

No it's not disgusting at all. Posting "poor little victim" in speech marks is disgusting. No one thinks all men are bastards on MN or anywhere else. The bastard ones are bastards. Lots of them are rather nice.

wannaBe Thu 07-Mar-13 20:34:42

look, she wasn't a victim of domestic abuse. She used it as an excuse to try to get away with a crime. To paint this woman as a victim is an insult to the genuine victims of domestic abuse, which she is not.

Chubfuddler Thu 07-Mar-13 20:36:31

You don't know that. Only that she failed to establish it beyond reasonable doubt.

I am a victim of domestic abuse, in case you missed me saying so. And I was very very good at hiding it. I'd had a lot of practice.

LineRunner Thu 07-Mar-13 20:37:32

wannaBe, I just I dislike the cliche 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned', and using Vicky Pryce to demonstrate something which is a falsehood anyway.

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 20:37:46

NONE of us knows this! She might for all we know.

I was merely pointing out to Karlos that domestic abuse is not necessarily physical. Saying that DV is not necessarily physical does not negate your experiences. My father, fwiw, was very much abusive to my mother but he never hit her. He completely deconstructed her personality though.

wannaBe Thu 07-Mar-13 20:38:28

actually, to put "poor little victim" is entirely appropriate when said "little victim" used the card to try to get away with a crime.

If CH was a domestic abuser she would have had many other examples with which to go to the press, but she didn't. She instead decided to try and bring him down and at the same time implicate an innocent party, and all in thcould have been aborted. If anything she is also an emotional abuser.e name of revenge, with no thought to what it would do to her children when she revealed the fact that one of them

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 20:38:58

X-posts with Chub and linerunner.

wannaBe Thu 07-Mar-13 20:40:11

oops blush

wannaBe Thu 07-Mar-13 20:40:58

what I was trying to say was that she gave no thought to the emotional impact of her child finding out that his father wanted him aborted, and this in my opinion makes her an emotional abuser

Chubfuddler Thu 07-Mar-13 20:41:00

Oh it's a "card" she played now. Are you playing lingo bingo or something?

Interacting with you is not good for my blood pressure so I'm going to stop now. I still believe her.

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 20:42:38

Let me see, trying to coerce someone into having an abortion isn't abusive? Even thinking that it would be OK to dump shit on someone from a great height by putting their name on an official piece of paper, instead of simply taking responsibility for your own actions?

Listening to that telephone conversation in which she is trying to get him to admit to the points thing, it seems clear to me that he knew she was recording him, knew she was out to get him. He is in no way above board in that conversation- a skilful dodger. I can imagine (pure conjecture here) that he is like this in his whole life- sneaky, slippery and self-interested, with an entirely ruthless streak.

mathanxiety Thu 07-Mar-13 20:57:18

Points on a licence is chump change compared to an abortion. If he was capable of pressuring her to have an abortion I suspect he was well able to pressure her to do his bidding in the driving matter.

feeltheforce Thu 07-Mar-13 21:08:14

Their poor kids. Now both parents are going to jail and hate each other.

I did feel really sorry for her when I heard the verdict. Chris Huhne sounds such an arse and I bet she was pressured and didn't know really what to do. It's clear she felt guilty about it over the years but maybe didn't appreciate how seriously the law took it. Silly her for blabbing to the press.

cumfy Thu 07-Mar-13 21:27:01

I loved Toynbee's take on this:

Basically that VP was stupid to get caught in her moment of revenge in 2011.

Not for one moment does she think VP or CH did anything wrong swapping points in 2003!

I can see them both getting 9 months.

I'd have so much more sympathy for the alleged coercion defence if she hadn't first tried to get CH tried by the papers and had, instead gone straight to the police. She could claim anything to the papers and they wouldn't have wanted proof, just a juicy story. The police are a different matter.

In the end she couldn't even convince the jury that it is possible she was coerced because if she had, they couldn't have found her guilty. She didn't have to prove that the abuse was beyond reasonable doubt. The court had to find her guilty of perverting the course of justice beyond reasonable doubt. There was no doubt as far as the jury was concerned. She could even persuade the jury that she might have been abused.

Sorry - couldn't even persuade not could.

Bessie123 Thu 07-Mar-13 21:34:53

I can't believe CH is getting flamed for telling his wife he thought she should have an abortion. I don't really know anything much about them but I think they have quite a few children. It doesn't sound particularly 'out there' for him to think that they couldn't cope with 6 children, or however many they have, and to suggest that she consider a termination. It is an option, it doesn't sound like the baby was planned. The fact that she didn't have one then despite her alleging that he 'pressured' her suggests he wasn't able to bully her that much..?

difficultpickle Thu 07-Mar-13 21:40:28

The bit that gets me is she tried to resurrect some almost dead and enormously old-fashioned defence of marital coercion despite having been happy to be feted for years as the capable woman in a man's world.

How many of us behave the same at work as we do at home? I have what is perceived as a 'high-powered job'. At work I am viewed as hard and demanding to work for. I work in a completely male dominated environment and the persona I have had to adopt gets me through each day and helps me to be viewed as being very good at my job.

I could not be more different in my private life. I have huge sympathy for Vicky Pryce. Huhne is an utterly nasty peace of work.

Posters who are saying that she told her son that his father wanted him aborted aren't correct. She did have an abortion and said in evidence that she felt hugely pressurised by Huhne to do so.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 21:51:29

"Points on a licence is chump change compared to an abortion. If he was capable of pressuring her to have an abortion I suspect he was well able to pressure her to do his bidding in the driving matter. "
What? WHAT??? taking someone else's points is a serious criminal offence. Having an abortion is not, nor should it be.
Can't believe I am reading this here!

flippinada Thu 07-Mar-13 21:58:37

I do have some sympathy for her. A lot of people assume professional, high powered women can't be victims of EA, DV and so on. Not true.

I don't have any sympathy at all for Chris Huhne.

I feel sorry most of all for their kids.

What an awful mess.

edam Thu 07-Mar-13 21:59:19

Heaven only knows what really went on, but it's entirely possible that he did put a great deal of pressure on her, even if she was unable to convince a second jury that it met the legal requirement for marital coercion. Being a successful professional person doesn't make you immune from abuse or violence, even, let alone undue pressure and bullying at home.

I can quote several examples of colleagues who are or have been dynamic, professional, experienced, qualified skillful women - you would never have dreamed what was going on behind closed doors. Senior managers in respected fields - and yet they were being abused by their partners/husbands. How many more women are putting up with pressure and bullying that falls short of the definition of domestic abuse?

It was very wrong of her to try to pin the blame on an innocent third party, though.

edam Thu 07-Mar-13 22:01:26

It seems particularly unfair that she had to go through two trials because at least one member of the original jury was a thicko. (I read the jury's questions to the judge in the original trial as a coded message reading 'we are all really frustrated with one dimwit who thinks they can reach a decision based on stuff that is completely irrelevant and nothing to do with the case, please tell them where to get off'.)

EchoBitch Thu 07-Mar-13 22:04:00

If she goes to prison he should get double the sentence.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 22:04:05

she made no allegation of violence against him. As for the rest of it, she failed to convince the jury, who were there and heard the evidence; the rest is speculation and her own self-serving version of events.
it is clear that when it suited her she was willing to turn the events against him and implicate a wholly innocent third party. In those circs I'm not surprised the jury refused to accept that she had been intimidated into her role.

UdderlyBanal Thu 07-Mar-13 22:04:57

She had two/three children from her first marriage to Mr Pryce, didn't she? A marriage she left because she was having an affair with the rich glamorous, ambitious, successful Mr Huhne. She was already pretty successful. I guess they fed off each other's ambitions. They used to host great salons and really fancy themselves as a leading thinking couple.

He may well have bullied her into taking his points but she did do it. And for a highly intelligent, incredibly well educated person to be so stupid as not to know that this was illegal is completely unbelievable. Yes, he may have been a bully towards her, quite possible. He is an arrogant fucker. But for heaven's sake, she loved his arrogance before they fell out.

After the relationship fell apart she was manipulative, arrogant and slippery. I thought trying to put the blame on a young aide, who had to get PCC protection, was despicable. Any shred of respect or sympathy I had for her disappeared then.

I am sure she was very, very hurt by agreeing to have an abortion. But you don't throw all this stuff about in public when you have children. She has caused all this despair and horror in her family. My mother had a very bad time in her first marriage. But as my siblings have a good relationship with our father, she is able to share her pain only with me. To share it with my siblings, even privately, would cause them enormous pain. So she doesn't do it.

Yes, Huhne was, is, a shit. And he left his wife in a truly unpleasant manner. But he did not set up the train of events which has led to them going to prison. She has.

I agree with what has been said about Carina Trimmingham. You spend your life selling shit - hardly surprising when it comes back to bite you.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 22:06:16

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Dromedary Thu 07-Mar-13 22:06:41

bisjo - Huhne supposedly pressurised her into having one abortion, and she later became pregnant again and he pressurised her again, but she went ahead with the pregnancy and had her younger son.
Karlos - taking somebody else's points may be a criminal offence (but there are very many more serious ones). But many wives would more readily agree to do that than to terminate the life of a baby they want to give birth to and bring up.

edam Thu 07-Mar-13 22:08:55

Karlos - seriously, read the notes the original jury sent to the judge. Clearly there was at least one person a few sandwiches short of the full picnic. Bizarre questions that indicated at least one member didn't even begin to have a clue but thought they could reach a verdict on imagination and prejudice.

flippinada Thu 07-Mar-13 22:10:43

I'm sure there was a thread on here some time ago where a woman was debating whether she should take her husband's points on to her licence because otherwise he'd get banned. Pretty sure the consensus was ffs don't do it! Whether she went ahead I don't know.

Quite sure it wasn't VP - wrong timescale.

EchoBitch Thu 07-Mar-13 22:10:46

I believe he did pressure her.

She shouldn't have done it but it's really not a hanging offence.

He's the elected MP,not her.

He was the one convicted of driving while using his mobile phone only 16 days after the speeding offence.

His arrogance led to all this.

His lies.

Yes,she colluded but who wouldn't if their husband's job was on the line.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 22:11:26

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

edam Thu 07-Mar-13 22:11:41

see here Questions like: 'Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?' from people who have sat on a jury and been given clear instructions by the judge are amazingly daft. Presumably there were some sensible people on the jury who were driven mad by some idiot/s who just didn't get it at all.

edam Thu 07-Mar-13 22:14:36

Hey Karlos, I've been perfectly civil to you. We can are each entitled to form different opinions of the justice or otherwise of the finding in this case - there's no need for you to make a personal attack.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 22:15:18

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Bessie123 Thu 07-Mar-13 22:21:28

edam I agree with you - there were some full on dumbass questions

LineRunner Thu 07-Mar-13 22:24:48

UdderlyBanal very insightful.

LineRunner Thu 07-Mar-13 22:25:36

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 22:15:18
"Maybe they weren't given clear instructions."

But they were.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 22:30:48

I've done plenty of jury trials.
Most jurors don;t understand the difference between speculation and inference. maybe that makes them "thickos"; it's not a judgement I'm in the habit of making about people I don't know. I'm not that sort of person, thankfully. But it's a difficulty they share with 99.9% of the posting population here, I'd have to say.

Xenia Thu 07-Mar-13 22:35:25

One survey found 300,.000 people had taken points for others in the last 10 years and over 50% did not even realise it was illegal. Hopefully now a lot more do know.

She was naive to get involved with the press.

However let her not be defamed. I believe she met Huhne only a year after her first marriage was over.

It is he who cheated on her and he who deserves what he gets for doing it particularly as she put a lot of career things on hold to help his career and he was not around much. I cannot see why he could be attractive to her at all. She could do a lot better than him.

LineRunner Thu 07-Mar-13 22:45:10

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 22:30:48
"I've done plenty of jury trials."

Gosh. Go you.

girliefriend Thu 07-Mar-13 22:48:55

I feel like I am missing something here confused I understand what they did was stupid and dishonest, do they need to go to prison though? Are they a danger to society?!

It does seem a bit ott.

And to put it in perspective a man locally who admitted to murder and took the police to where he had buried the body will not even go to trial because of a technicality that happened when he was arrested!!

The legal system seems to have gone a bit mad.

KatieMiddleton Thu 07-Mar-13 22:49:17

confused I really can't see what Edam posted that has deserved such unpleasant attention from Karlos. Edam's even cited sources.

Would it be a personal attack to call someone a hypocrite? Just out of interest wink

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 22:51:20

Karlos, no, no you haven't. You can't be called to be a juror more than once every two years and with about 40 million people eligible to be called you'd better be buying lottery tickets as well if you're lucky enough to be called up more than once in a lifetime.

duchesse Thu 07-Mar-13 22:52:48

I'm beginning to wonder if we don't have CH himself in our midst, I have to say.

edam Thu 07-Mar-13 22:57:45

Thanks Katie. Am a bit taken aback, tbh.

LineRunner Thu 07-Mar-13 23:01:16

Maybe Karlos is a regular defendant? Who knows.

KatieMiddleton Thu 07-Mar-13 23:01:40

Don't worry anyone with eyes, regardless of their view of the Pryce case, can see you haven't done anything to deserve those comments.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 23:07:13

"Maybe Karlos is a regular defendant? "
That wouldn't be a personal attack, of course. Perish the thought.

bulletproofgerbil Thu 07-Mar-13 23:07:51

I feel sorry for her. I can so understand the overwhelming urge/need to get your own back in her situation but it has back-fired horribly. I think that because she is a strong, professional woman career-wise, the jury found it hard to believe she was coerced by her husband into taking the points. It's hard to know what goes on in a couple's home though, and that may or may not be true. Either way, she was dealt a shitty hand by her cheating toad of a husband and wanted him to suffer as he'd made her suffer. In the end, both of them have. What a mess.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 23:11:19

I have to say this tendency to excuse or mitigate what she has done on the grounds that her husband cheated shows that people confuse the private and public spheres to a very worrying extent. Doing this can get you into a right bloody mess. As Vicky Pryce could tell you, if she had even an ounce of self-knowledge.

creighton Thu 07-Mar-13 23:15:36

they say that if you plan revenge, you need to dig two graves.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LineRunner Thu 07-Mar-13 23:19:11

So what's the deal with Briscoe? Is she is serious shit as well?

LineRunner Thu 07-Mar-13 23:20:30

Sorry sm x-posted and cut across you there.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim Thu 07-Mar-13 23:22:31

There it is again!
Your husband cheating on you does not excuse breach of the criminal law.
if you are someone whose livelihood depends to any extent on reputation, being involved in something like this suggests you are either chronically stupid or arrogant to the point of insanity. i spend time at nights lying awake about breaches I might have committed inadvertently. the notion that people in their position would have run a deliberate risk like this is mind-boggling to me. They must have thought that the humble little coppers dealing with it were just dickheads. As people of their type often do.

KatieMiddleton Thu 07-Mar-13 23:23:38

Briscoe is a serial attention seeker. I am basing that on nothing to do with this case but solely on her publishing her misery memoir and her public appearances.

LineRunner Thu 07-Mar-13 23:31:48

I saw Briscoe on Question Time once and I felt embarrassed.

Not just her - many QT panellists do that for me.

creighton Thu 07-Mar-13 23:32:23

karlos, i agree with your last statement about the arrogance of people at this level of society. they clearly think that only the little people go to jail and not them.

constance briscoe seems to be in the evening standard every year with some story or another. i don't know what her problem is. she is a barrister/qc, she should have been able to calculate the ramifications of this story and tell her friend not to go down this route. after apparently working hard to raise herself from the lower echelons of society she has probably thrown everything away.

all these people see themselves as much cleverer than the ordinary run of society.

UdderlyBanal Thu 07-Mar-13 23:33:21

Huhne apparently described Briscoe as delusional. I thought that was pretty funny given the circumstances.

Actually you can be called to be a juror any time. You have the right to refuse to serve again if you have already done jury service within the last 2 years but they can call you. Plenty of people have done it more than once - it isn't that unusual. I met several who had done it before on the jury I was on 3 weeks ago. One woman was on her 4th round of jury service although she was in her 60's so they were well spread out.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Dromedary Thu 07-Mar-13 23:42:19

Karlos, as you are seemingly a lawyer, you are naturally particularly wary of breaching the criminal law, as it could cost you your career.
But I think it is important to look at things from an ethical point of view. For instance driving at 72 miles per hour on the motorway is a breach of the criminal law. Many people do it every day with no adverse impact on anyone, and there is no social stigma attached to it. Having a secret second family with another woman, and leaving all your worldy goods to your second family when you die, is perfectly legal, but very nasty. Much more unethical than driving slighly over the speed limit. It is quite possible to ruin somebody else's life, quite deliberately, without doing anything that would attract the attention of the police. Why expect people to disapprove of something more just because it has been classified as a criminal offence?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KatieMiddleton Thu 07-Mar-13 23:47:36

There is nothing Karlos has posted that suggests to me s/he is a lawyer. You know, just in case anyone might give two hoots what i think grin

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BerylStreep Thu 07-Mar-13 23:58:55

Are lawyers allowed to serve on juries? I know there are some professions, such as police, who aren't allowed to. Not sure about lawyers.

Bessie123 Fri 08-Mar-13 00:00:44

They relaxed the rules on who is eligible for jury service a few years ago

CardinalRichelieu Fri 08-Mar-13 00:04:02

This thing is like the end of Hamlet, where all the characters are lying dead on the floor covered in blood and Fortinbras walks in and goes 'wtf'.

Things we have learned today: marital coercion is not a strong defence. It is better to take legal advice from lawyers than journalists. The involvement of law in ones personal life is to be avoided at all costs.

Redbindy Fri 08-Mar-13 00:07:06

VPs crimes were only significant compared to her husbands if you accept that marriage has women as junior partners. They were both in this together.

Bessie123 Fri 08-Mar-13 00:13:38

Well, they colluded to pervert the course of justice; I would say they are as bad as each other.

EchoBitch Fri 08-Mar-13 00:14:19

Chris Huhne was an MP.

He helped make laws.

And he disregarded the law when he wanted.

That is why Chris H11HNE is more guilty than his wife.

He committed the original crime and he lied.

EchoBitch Fri 08-Mar-13 00:17:21

He wanted to be the leader of the Lib Dems and possibly Prime Minister.

He wanted to be a lawmaker.

He wanted to make laws that the rest of us have to abide by.

He should show himself as being someone who respects and abides by the same laws as the rest of us.

Jeez,he was an elected MP,what an arrogant man.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Bessie123 Fri 08-Mar-13 00:23:28

The speeding is not the major offence, it is the lying about it, which they both did, that attracts the potential of a custodial sentence.

Bessie123 Fri 08-Mar-13 00:24:53

I agree that what those children were put through was disgusting. And the boy's text messages to CH broke my heart - I would be devastated if my dc sent me anything like that

EchoBitch Fri 08-Mar-13 00:26:33

Yes,she was wrong to collude.

And it must be hard to refuse if your DH wants you to take his points and he says his job depends on it.

She was wrong but he was the MP.

He,more than any of us should make sure he doesn't break the law.

And if he does inadvertently,then he should face up to it.

He was so arrogant that he continued to break the law by using his phone while driving 16 days later.

Caught again and banned for 6 months.

Class act that man.

CardinalRichelieu Fri 08-Mar-13 00:27:05

Her choice to join in WAS ALSO A CRIME. It is tried as a separate offence to his crime. Hence why she has been convicted. Even in the sorry state this country is currently in, you can't be convicted of something that is not a crime. The crime is perverting the course of justice, you can look it up on the CPS website.

Obviously Huhne can never be an MP again, but in law his hypocrisy does not make him more guilty than her.

I would not be surprised if they ended up with the same sentence.

EchoBitch Fri 08-Mar-13 00:30:40

IMO Chris Huhne should have been barred from being an MP after being banned from driving for using his phone while at the wheel.

They should be setting an example when they are in positions of power.

BerylStreep Fri 08-Mar-13 00:31:55

Echo, that is a very scary thought that Huhne had aspirations to be PM.

EchoBitch Fri 08-Mar-13 00:34:27

Why would he not want to be PM?

He wanted to be leader of the Lib Dems and was a career politician.

Surely they all want the top job if only secretly.

roselover Fri 08-Mar-13 00:36:10

I feel sorry for her - she has to be a lesson to us all- I for one have sat there tearstained , racking my brain to think of methods of revenge...but I guess the lesson here is you have to stay cool - 14 years ago the man I was about to marry called off our wedding and finally admitted to being in love with his 19 year old secretary - I know I can laugh now but God it was tragic - mostly because I lost contact with my almost stepson who was 10 (I had brought him up as my own from the age of 5 ) I had to have the wisdom of Solomon and leave him to his new family - he married the secretary. When the boy was 14 he turned up at my office and we have been in touch ever since - next week he is moving nearer to me with his girlfriend - my point being revenge is not always the way.

CardinalRichelieu Fri 08-Mar-13 00:38:55

If your husband says he's having an affair you should go and find two things: a good solicitor and a new lover. Revenge is a waste of mental energy that can be put to much better use.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

EchoBitch Fri 08-Mar-13 00:42:52

A good solicitor needs to be afforded.
A new lover isn't even that easy.

I agree with the revenge bit,but it must be hard not to be bitter when you have a family together.

EchoBitch Fri 08-Mar-13 00:44:05

I'd hope he gets double her sentence,especially if she gets a custodial one.

He did both crimes,he lied to the court and he did the crime.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CardinalRichelieu Fri 08-Mar-13 00:55:48

He didn't actually lie to the court, he pled guilty as soon as the trial started. Prob didn't want to get done for perjury as well...

ScottishMerlotish - thank you. I was suprised nobody else go to this name when I tried it out I too have Hiccup obbessed boys. To be fair, as children's books go I loved them too and all the silly names. I just don't see myself as a Snotlout or a Fishlegs. grin

You will be very welcome to it when I have finished with it, whenever that may be. <<generous>> wink

EchoBitch Fri 08-Mar-13 01:03:31

Chris Huhne's trial went on for 14 days before he changed his plea to guilty.

I get that the urge for revenge must be very powerful but don't you just suck it up for the sake of your children? They had one parent who let them down very very badly. They didn't really need the other one to let them down too and drag up things that would have been better off buried or kept to themselves.

EchoBitch Fri 08-Mar-13 01:07:50

You'd hope so wouldn't you BBB .

I do feel for their children.

ComposHat Fri 08-Mar-13 02:47:48

Karlos, no, no you haven't. You can't be called to be a juror more than once every two years and with about 40 million people eligible to be called you'd better be buying lottery tickets as well if you're lucky enough to be called up more than once in a lifetime

Really? I live in Scotland and got called up twice within eighteen months or so. I was exempted from the second lot of jury service as I'd done it before. But my name was picked out twice. Mind you we have a smaller population and more offences tried by jury up here.

mathanxiety Fri 08-Mar-13 05:02:45

["Points on a licence is chump change compared to an abortion. If he was capable of pressuring her to have an abortion I suspect he was well able to pressure her to do his bidding in the driving matter. "
What? WHAT??? taking someone else's points is a serious criminal offence. Having an abortion is not, nor should it be.
Can't believe I am reading this here!]

An abortion against the will or better judgement of the woman is not what was envisioned by the parliament that legalised abortion. Abortion per se is legal but that does not mean an individual woman must have one if her husband insists. In fact I think that is about as far from the intention of the law as a situation could be.

superfluouscurves Fri 08-Mar-13 07:46:49

It's a real lesson in life as to how two supposedly intelligent, successful people can balls things up so stupidly.

(1) I happen to know two really powerful, successful women who are utterly confident and dominant at work, whoare totally lilly livered when it comes to relationships with their husbands. (I'm not saying that is the case here - a friend of ours worked with VP for a while and he reported her as being someone you wouldn't mess with - but it is possible.)

(2) Whatever happens, I don't think it serves any purpose for her to have to go to prison (it would be a waste of tax payer's money for one thing). I know it has to be shown that people with privilege get the same treatment as anyone else, but she is hardly a threat to society; and frankly, the public scrutiny/adverse publicity and the shattering of her family that she is suffering now, is surely punishment enough (maybe with a heavy fine or some community service thrown in).

olgaga Fri 08-Mar-13 08:04:20

Interesting thread.

Huhne pleaded guilty at the last possible moment, after several attempts by his legal team to get the case thrown out. So his sentence reduction will only be 10%.

There is no reason to imagine this is less serious a crime than any other. Scheming and lying to avoid a legal penalty is a matter which goes to the heart of the justice system.

The jury yesterday found that she was not coerced, she was complicit in perverting the course of justice.

There are three lessons to be learned from this case, which will be emphasised by the sentencing of both Huhne and Pryce:

1. Lying to evade accountability under the law is unacceptable, no matter what the crime, and whether it is civil or criminal.

2. Seeking revenge is usually futile and corrosive, and likely to rebound on the the person seeking revenge.

3. As with Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken, being a high-flyer doesn't excuse self-serving lies to evade justice, it only means you have further to fall if (and usually when) you are discovered.

The reason I feel sad for Pryce is because I think she was goaded beyond reason by the downright nasty press briefings against her by Trimingham, during the Lib Dem Conference in 2010.

None of them come out of this well, but of the three of them, Pryce is the only one who gets my sympathy.

debs8 Fri 08-Mar-13 08:11:16

The person I feel the most sympathy for is the son.Family life destroyed for him forever by two selfish , calculating,vengeful & devious so called 'parents' who wanted him aborted.I hope the pair of them both go down because they both lied, committed crimes of varying degrees & are a disgrace. All the more reason divorce laws should be amended.

catsrus Fri 08-Mar-13 08:11:46

I'm gobsmacked at how many posters seem to think "tough independent intelligent woman" can't be a victim of domestic abuse. Isn't marital coercion simply emotional abuse under another name? Isnt pressurising a woman into an abortion she doesn't want EA?

I totally believe her - but she was an idiot for going down the revenge route.

olgaga Fri 08-Mar-13 08:15:41

debs8 Yes I do feel sympathy for the son, indeed all their children. I don't think you can say it was the case that both parents wanted an abortion when Pryce ultimately refused to go ahead with it.

greenfolder Fri 08-Mar-13 08:18:22

sympathy for her?

she took the points.

she then flogged the story of her lawbreaking to the press in an act of vengence

she has been found guilty of doing so, despite a dubious attempt to avoid this.

she will have to pay the penalty

how about her repaying the taxpayer for the cost of her lawbreaking, court time etc.

i do feel sorry for her kids for what has been dragged out through the court case- but again that was her choice to do so.

duchesse Fri 08-Mar-13 08:20:00

I don't even believe that his job depended on passing on his points. He wouldn't have been the first MP or person in the public eye to be banned from driving for a while and had to use a driver and/or taxis. He just couldn't be bothered to deal with the fallout from his crime, and having no regard for his wife apparently, thought nothing of sticking them on her licence instead.

I am also very hmm about the prosecution team suddenly bringing VP's friend Constance Briscoe into the mix, again at the last minute. Why wait that late? Unless it was a last stab in the dark and attempt to hurt her even more.

Now the trial is over they have released documents and emails that Pryce sent to the Times journalist. She shows herself to be incredibly calculating and she did everything possible to try and get other people into trouble while avoiding it herself. To try and implicate the OW is understandable (if not right) but she even tried to involve another totally innocent aide to ensure he got sent down and she (Pryce) got away scot free.

It is quite clear why the jury found her guilty based on the series of emails alone and quite rightly. How the first jury didn't is beyond me.

By taking the course she has, Pryce has brought a lot of dirty linen out into the public that should have remained private. I feel enormous sympathy for the son who has had to endure what he has and seen and heard what has been said in court and I actually find it despicable that a mother would do that to her own family.

olgaga Fri 08-Mar-13 08:39:23

duchesse he didn't have an MPs job when this happened. He was a MEP.

If he'd lost his licence, it could have affected his selection as the Eastleigh Lib Dem candidate.

They were complicit in sharing the points, it's true. How galling for her that having done that for him, and after securing the nomination, he then went on to lose his licence for not bothering to put his seatbelt on, meaning she had to act as his chauffeur during the Eastleigh by election campaign.

I suppose sympathy is not the right word, exactly. However I do understand that she wasn't in her right mind at the time she tried to seek revenge.

Husband had left her for OW, OW then proceeded to brief against her as a "scorned wife" in the press.

It must have been awful.

Her actions were ill-thought-out, blatantly encouraged by a self-serving journalist, and disastrous for the whole family.

People do incredibly misguided things when they are under extreme emotional pressure. It's easy in hindsight to see the whole sequence of events spiralling out of control.

duchesse Fri 08-Mar-13 08:57:48

I got flashed for speeding last year. My husband is the registered keeper of the car I was in.
HE received the Notice of Intended Prosecution.
HE had to fill in the details of the person driving at the time.
HE had to sign it as a true statement of who was driving
HE sent it back- he was responsible for that.

The form quite clearly states that it is a criminal offence not to name the actual driver at the time.

I'm not sure I even had to sign the NIP at that stage-does anyone know about this? When the papers came back in my name, it was up to me to deal with.

BerylStreep Fri 08-Mar-13 09:15:18

Yes, Huhne and Carina are both odious.

Who said upthread that when you plot revenge you should dig 2 graves? Good quote.

BerylStreep Fri 08-Mar-13 09:18:55

Last night, I hypothetically asked my DH if he would take points for me. He said no way. His reasoning is that quite apart from the fact it is a breach of the law, and the jeopardy that it would put on his career, that if you manage to rack up 9 points already, you clearly need to lose your licence before the message gets through.

I wonder if Huhne currently has any points. I wonder if Carina does? wink

Animation Fri 08-Mar-13 09:20:33

My sympathy is with her - and not him.

hackmum Fri 08-Mar-13 09:20:35

On the last thread we had about this, there was quite a long discussion about the burden of proof, and why the judge had insisted that the burden of proof lay with the prosecution when normally in a marital coercion case it lies with the defence. It turns out that there were pre-trial discussions in which the defence persuaded the judge the burden of proof should be with the prosecution. Apparently the judge agreed because the Human Rights Act enshrines a presumption of innocence.

Thought I'd share that in case anyone from the previous thread was around and interested!

hackmum Fri 08-Mar-13 09:22:04

duchesse: "I'm not sure I even had to sign the NIP at that stage-does anyone know about this? When the papers came back in my name, it was up to me to deal with."

Yes, apparently this was what Huhne did: he sent the form off naming her as the driver (even though according to her, she'd refused at that point), and when she received the papers back she felt she had to sign them.

Animation Fri 08-Mar-13 09:25:18

The main thing is that he got exposed for being the self-serving unethical twit that he is.

duchesse Fri 08-Mar-13 09:27:25

So by the time the SECOND set of papers came back, if she'd refused sign, she'd have been sending him straight into prison, definitely losing him his job and upsetting their entire lives. Ten years ago their children were quite a bit younger as well. He utterly dumped her in it, making it her decision whether to enforce his responsibility.

I can entirely see why she wouldn't have wanted to do that back then. I can also entirely understand why it would have rankled for all these years to be basically made into a criminal by someone who got off scot-free (although of course he lost his licence anyway a fortnight later). I don't think any sane person could view her "complicity" at the time as fully willing.

catsrus Fri 08-Mar-13 09:35:38

I think that was the point duchess he had already lied and she had to decide whether or not to go along with it. What a horrible position to be put in. It wasn't her saying she'd done it - but once he said it (and sent off the forms) she felt she had no choice but to go along with it. Having been with my ex for 25 yrs (and Huhne seems to be a similar personality type) I can see how coercion happened perhaps more easily than some others can. She was probably, ironically, thinking very much of the children and the impact on them should she not go along with his scheme.

I would hope I would not have knowingly broken the law - but there were certainly times when I signed documents without fully understanding what the implications were blush. Looking back I barely recognise myself - but it's a long slow process of becoming someone who doesn't rock the boat at home but is more than feisty outside it.

Xenia Fri 08-Mar-13 09:36:16

duchesse, same here with my son (went into an area which apparently was one way (not well signed to be fair to him)), car in my name s I returned it saying who was the correct driver as most of us would do although not apparently the 300,000 people over 10 years who have lied about the driver.

cats, yes, it's true. You can be competent, clever, successful and still bullied in a marriage.

As for the son comment above VP did not want to abort her son. It was apparently the husband's suggestion and I am sure the son know where all blame lies in this matter - fairly and squarely at the door of his father who chose to sleep with the lesbian in the civil partnership and hide and lie rather than ending a marriage and then seeking someone else and completing the form and lying on it and presenting it to his wife as sign or I lose my career. Had he acted properly none of this would have happened.

catsrus Fri 08-Mar-13 09:37:02

oops cross post - but yes!

hackmum Fri 08-Mar-13 09:37:16

I agree, duchesse. Assuming her story is true, then it would have been very hard for her at that point to refuse to take the points. The consequences would have been terrible.

So if she had really wanted to land him in it years later, the thing to do would have been to go to the police, confess everything, and she'd have probably ended up with a light sentence. Instead she went to the papers, and set in train a sequence of events that has ended in disaster for both of them.

duchesse Fri 08-Mar-13 09:37:58

I know of someone who ended up saddled with millions of ££ of debt because she felt she just had to sign whatever her husband put in front of her. She was in a fairly traditional marriage although she has a good job. I believe that in her case marital coercion should have been a valid defence but it was deemed to be by the courts.

duchesse Fri 08-Mar-13 09:40:35

She probably felt (quite rightly) that the police wouldn't have taken it anywhere after ten years and that he was close enough to the centres of power to make it all go away anyway. So she chose the fourth estate instead.

duchesse Fri 08-Mar-13 09:41:14

*it was NOT deemed to be... She was utterly landed in it.

Terpsichore Fri 08-Mar-13 09:56:01

Agree that neither of them comes out of this well, and the whole story is truly depressing. I feel so, so sorry for the children.

One thing that really struck me (and apologies if someone has said this - haven't managed to read whole thread) is that Huhne is a very, very wealthy man.....a multi-millionaire apparently. How hard would it have been for him to just hire someone to drive him, FFS? Then all this could have been avoided, or at least they could have washed their dirty linen in private. But no, he appears to be tightfisted in addition to all his other deeply unattractive characteristics.

It sickens me the way these arrogant twunts think they can get away with anything they like and just keep denying, denying, denying until the very last second. Masters of the Universe indeed.

noblegiraffe Fri 08-Mar-13 10:02:58

This whole thing comes off as something that wouldn't look out of place on Jeremy Kyle. "You claim you were coerced into taking the points, after the break we find out the results of the lie detector test"
Turns out that rich and powerful people can be just as vile to each other as the families on that show.

Animation Fri 08-Mar-13 10:13:07

"You claim you were coerced into taking the points, after the break we find out the results of the lie detector test"

All a bit daft I know. But can't help but think she needed to take him on somehow, and a prison sentence might be a small price to pay for getting her power back and him out of her hair. The son already knew the state of his dad's integrity - and she exposed it to the world. We don't need men like that in powerful positions running our country.

higgle Fri 08-Mar-13 10:16:43

Agreed 100% Terpsishore. The worst thing you can do when you have made a big mistake in life is face up to it and get on with life. If they had both admitted the offence straightaway none of this dreadful family stuff need have come out, the children would not have had the upsetting revelations disclosed in public and people might have had a little bit of respect for them as flawed human beings who had made bad choices.

Again, I would have a lot more sympathy for this view if she hadn't try to fit somebody else up for taking the points and had gone to the police first. You can try and defend her integrity all you like but she's blown that by going about things in such a self serving manner. If she had gone to the police and not the papers she would have achieved the same ends, kept some dignity and may even have avoided court herself.

duchesse Fri 08-Mar-13 10:25:11

BBB, yes but would she? Really, have achieved the same ends? With him so close to central government, I have my doubts.

That was to those who think she was hard done by.

And just to add she still didn't have to take the points even after the forms come back. She could have refused to sign even then. I am sure they would not have been the first people to have a change of mind about who was driving - it is difficult to remember sometimes. It wasn't too late to do something then even if they might have had a bit of a telling off for wasting time.

Chubfuddler Fri 08-Mar-13 10:32:09

I think politically hiring a driver would have looked bad for huhne tbh.

Animation Fri 08-Mar-13 10:33:36

Still think it's difficult to prove coercion. She may have been in subtle/covert ways. How is she supposed look or sound to convince people that she lived in a climate of control?

It may still be the truth that she felt coerced.

Animation Fri 08-Mar-13 10:40:13

"I think politically hiring a driver would have looked bad for huhne tbh."

And he may be a narcissist and narcissists don't want to look bad. Image is everything.

BerylStreep Fri 08-Mar-13 10:42:12

Hackmum, that's very interesting about the burden of proof. Were there reporting restrictions during the 2nd trial? I thought it strange that none of the detail of the second trial was reported when it was ongoing.

babybarrister Fri 08-Mar-13 10:48:35

I don't feel sorry for her - she went out of her way to cut off her nose to spite her face - and now she is paying for the consequences. We all have to make decisions in life - she chose out of vengeance to grass him up. That was her choice. She may not be a lawyer but she is a very intelligent woman who must have known that she was also complicit in a crime. She chose to make a sad set of circumstances for her family even worse.

As to the defence of marital coercion, personally I find it an insult to the last 50 years of feminism - imagine what would have happened if dear Chris had tried to run that defence - he would have been pilloried and rightly so.

They have both wasted an inordinate amount of the state's time and money at a point when legal aid is being cut for vulnerable defendants. I hope that the application for costs by the CPS against both of them succeeds.

I am sure that he will rightly be sentenced to more than her and actually I do hope she is not sent inside as it is waste of time and money - let's see her do some community service whilst she mulls over whether the revenge was worth it ....

Eurostar Fri 08-Mar-13 10:54:13

I just hope that it is the end of both these specimens in public life.

I have listened to one of the recordings on the news this morning where she tried to "fit him up" by trying to get him to admit this offence on a recorded conversation. She is so raging and so bitter, and who can blame her, however, I am disgusted that she has weakened the position of women who are truly maritally coerced by using this law. If he was such an abuser the journalists would have looked for and found far more evidence of continued coercion throughout the marriage. Of course successful women can be abused at home - indeed a certain type of abuser chooses a strong woman.. I can't see any evidence that this was the case here. He had enough of her and discarded her, it doesn't equal a life of abuse and coercion.

People keep talking about his power but what about her power? She has wielded as much, if not more power over the economic life of the country, (which is in a great state isn't it?) with her positions. Her positions at the top of powerful companies, boards and quangos put her up there with extremely rich people who control a great deal of what goes on. The sort of people who lobby politicians with expensive lobbying companies to get laws pushed through that suit their vested interests. She ran an organisation promoting ethical practice in business, she lectures to aspiring leaders at business schools. All the time with the sort of ethics that led her to take on speeding points, leaving a dangerous driver on the road.

There are woman out there who would be at risk of extreme abuse if they refused to take their partner's points, she has put those women at further risk as far as I am concerned by trying to use the law to get revenge. They are both as despicable as each other.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

I'm waiting to see the outcome of the business over Pryce's close friend who is a judge and may be being done for perjury too for her statement on Pryce's behalf. That has nothing to do with the journalist and shows Pryce weaving quite a web.

lrichmondgabber Fri 08-Mar-13 11:36:10

The courts are going after revenge now

Animation Fri 08-Mar-13 11:43:41

Whatever the ins and out rights and wrongs of this ..

Pryce has won a moral victory - these powerful men can think they're entitled to do what they like. He got his comeuppance and maybe she got her self respect back for standing up to the buggar.

Good on her I say.

limitedperiodonly Fri 08-Mar-13 11:44:11

The courts don't take revenge. They look at the things that people have done and pass sentence along the same lines as they'd treat everyone else.

Every idiot involved in this ridiculous scam seems to have forgotten this.

It's quite refreshing.

limitedperiodonly Fri 08-Mar-13 11:54:53

In what way has Pryce won a moral victory? She's been exposed as an unstable liar and she's probably going to prison.

If she'd have gone to the police and said 'I did it. I'm not proud of myself but I was under a lot of pressure' then Huhne would be ruined and she'd get a suspended sentence and a lot of sympathy.

If the police and CPS were reluctant to pursue Huhne, which they were because they didn't think it was that important, that was the time to go to the papers and confess all and put the pressure on that way.

She will, of course, get out of jail and immediately do a story, probably for the Mail on Sunday. And she will probably pick up a newspaper column and continue with her TV commentary gigs but her career might move to being the go-to person if you want someone to talk about marital car crashes rather than the economy.

Alternatively she could have dropped the whole madcap idea and either amused herself dripping poison about him to senior friends in the LibDems and political reporters or just drawn a line under it and got on with her life.

donnie Fri 08-Mar-13 11:56:09

Ghastly, vain people both of them, hoist by their own petard. I can't decide which one I dislike more.

I think there is a lot more to come out over the next few days though....(taps side of nose knowingly)

lrichmondgabber Fri 08-Mar-13 12:15:24

The admitted adultery by Huhne is a real factor in the story going so far so tragically

TheOriginalLadyFT Fri 08-Mar-13 12:19:33

As to the defence of marital coercion, personally I find it an insult to the last 50 years of feminism - imagine what would have happened if dear Chris had tried to run that defence - he would have been pilloried and rightly so

I see what you're saying, but it doesn't work the other way round for good reason - a woman can't badger and coerce a man into having an abortion, for example. Marital coercion as a defence only came about, surely, because we live in a patriarchal society where women are pressured by men and society into behaving in a certain way

I have been, in my time, a big hitter employment-wise and had a reputation as a tough cookie. During that time, I also had a long relationship with someone who subjected me to serious emotional abuse and gaslighting, and came dangerously close to physical abuse as well (shoving, gripping wrists etc). What went on behind closed doors, and my inability to cope with it, was never visible to those who saw me at work

Animation Fri 08-Mar-13 12:27:50

"In what way has Pryce won a moral victory? She's been exposed as an unstable liar and she's probably going to prison."

She righted a wrong and stood up to this man. And we don't really know if her motives were vengeful, or if she is unstable or a liar. Coercion can't really be proven.

He lied though. That is is a fact.

poozlepants Fri 08-Mar-13 12:28:26

We don't know what their marriage was like at all. All we have is a newspaper version from a bitter woman who's behaviour since he left her has been nothing short of atrocious as far as I can see. Why should I believe anything she has to say?
Huhne might well be a cnut but I'm afraid she seems to have done everything to stop taking any of the blame for the driving mess which she got herself into- blaming innocent parties, failing to take responsibility for her actions and dragging her childrens' private lives through court. It appears all to be about her winning and not about what is the decent thing to do.

Lottapianos Fri 08-Mar-13 12:29:06

I'm sure many people who know me would consider me a woman to be reckoned with but I was in an emotionally abusive relationship with a man who I was afraid to stand up to. He could have coerced me into doing many things against my better judgment. I do have sympathy with her but think she could definitely handled the aftermath in a much more responsible way.

TheCraicDealer Fri 08-Mar-13 12:30:54

Agree completely with Eurostar. Pryce's portrayal of herself as a woman who sacrificed her career for her family (‘We’d had au pairs but we couldn’t both be away from home...So I completely hanged my career’) does not sit with her increasing status within government agencies during her marriage. In 2002 she became the first female chief economist at the Department of Trade and Industry. Five years later she was promoted again and became the joint head of the Government’s Economic Service. Pryce was one of the most powerful, unelected figures in British politics. I could "go" with the idea of her having a completely different home life if she didn't paint a picture of a individual who sacrificed her personal development for her husband's career. That is blatantly not the case.

ComposHat Fri 08-Mar-13 12:32:28

I don't believe for a second she was coerced into anything.. every action she he's taken shows her to be as scheming and vile as her ex-husband. she has caused her son incredible distress and has lied to try and dump a lowly aide on it and save her own skin. Tried to implicate friends such as Miriam Clegg and Vince Cable who had supported her .

Im agine the conversation went something like this.

pryce: I'm fucked aren't I?

lawyer: haha. I have a wizard. wheeze...we will use this arcane defence of marital coertion, all you need to do. play the oppressed little Riley for a week and all will be tickety boo.

pryce: great idea. I will practice my meek and downtrodden face.

most of all she has been really stupid.

what she did was the equivalent of walking into a cop shop and telling the desk sargeant that person x. had robbed a bank and when asked how you knew telling the copper 'because I robbed it with them'

slug Fri 08-Mar-13 12:35:43

This whole affair has been the very definition of a Pyrric victory

cumfy Fri 08-Mar-13 12:36:28

'I did it. I'm not proud of myself but I was under a lot of pressure' then Huhne would be ruined and she'd get a suspended sentence and a lot of sympathy.

True, and I also think a suspended sentence would have been on the cards if she'd pleaded guilty at the doors of the court.

I do wonder about the nature of the legal advice she received and whether it was made clear she was taking a jail/no jail decision.

A lot of public and privately funded lawyers have got very rich off the splashes from this particular teacup.

Animation Fri 08-Mar-13 12:39:06

"This whole affair has been the very definition of a Pyrric victory"

Just looked that up and completely agree.

babybarrister Fri 08-Mar-13 12:40:20

but men could be coerced as well into doing things - they are also men who have been emotionally abused but to go from that to saying that you had a defence to a criminal act is a huge step.

yes Chris lied but so did she - she signed her name on the form fgs! - of course she must have known that was illegal

bingodiva Fri 08-Mar-13 12:45:17

she deserves to go to jail as well as he does. hes a vile character as are most MPs however from some of the evidence that came out she showed she was out for revenge no matter what and she didnt care who she used to try and get one over on him.

cumfy Fri 08-Mar-13 13:12:39

hackmum, that's really interesting about pre-trial discussions, do you have a link ?

mrsshackleton Fri 08-Mar-13 13:32:46

Read the emails between VP and the Sunday Times. She clearly states she wants to "nail" her husband, ruin his career (understandably in the circs, but IRRELEVANT to the verdict) and discusses how she ideally wants to do it without getting into trouble herself, the ST assure her (totally disingenuously) that if she plays the wronged woman card she'll be OK. She was incredibly foolish.

noddyholder Fri 08-Mar-13 13:39:36

I think when someone has betrayed you and walked all over your emotions it can send you a bit mad! I feel for her you don't think straight.

catsrus Fri 08-Mar-13 13:46:22

I think there is too much confusion between her actions once he left her and what happened at the time of the offence. I don't see how it was legitimate to use any of the contemporary material as evidence - surely the only thing relevant was whether at the time she felt coerced by her husband to take the points. I believe she did feel coerced - I also think she was quite wrong to go down the revenge route - though the provocation was pretty extreme too IMO. Two different points in time and different issues.

EldritchCleavage Fri 08-Mar-13 13:58:57

I think VP was pressured, but not coerced. There is a world of difference between the two. As I understand it, to make out the defence you've effectively got to show the spouse stood over you and made you do it. That wasn't this case.

Her own evidence showed that: yes I stood up to him over the second abortion, but no I couldn't years later with a v good job, older children and more independence when he demanded I take his speeding points. Not credible.

And let us not forget she didn't dob CH in to the cops, she took her story to the media. The original version had an entirely blameless young Lib Dem activist taking the points for CH. That story fell apart because the journos established the young woman didn't even have a licence at the time. But if she had, she could have been investigated and caused all kinds of problems, just so VP could have her revenge. That is an absolutely appalling act of casual dishonesty that has been overlooked.

Along with being prepared to disclose to her son that his father wanted him to be aborted, it is hard to feel anything other than distaste for VP. However bad you think she is, though, Chris Huhne is a thousand times worse. Let the costs order be swingeing.

LineRunner Fri 08-Mar-13 14:12:08

Hackmum thanks for the update on the burden of proof. I was very interested in that on the other thread, whether she would have to prove her defence.

And even with a lower burden for her, she got found guilty.

lottieandmia Fri 08-Mar-13 14:15:31

I thought that coerced suggested 'under duress' or threat of violence? I agree that it sounds like this was not the case.

It certainly is out of order to use children against each other though. I wonder what else will come out that donnie alluded to earlier upthread.

Xenia Fri 08-Mar-13 14:30:37

I disagree. I think children have a right to know things like if their father is an adulterer or wife beater or bully or liar or wanted to abort them. I don't think you do the child any favours at all by lying to it.

If CH did not want to be villified by his children he could easily (a) not speeded (I never speed) (b) not lied on the form about who are driving (c) not gone ahead and registered his wife as the driver without her consent and then say sign here or ruin my career(d) not committed adultery with the lesbian in the civil partnership.

I am sure the children know exactly who is responsible for what in this sorry saga.

I wonder if it would be an idea to change the speeding forms sent out ?

We've noticed (having both been caught by speeding cameras on same stretch of road BTW) that the form has to be filled in by the person owning the car.
Maybe if there was a small section that had to be filled in by the driver briefly explaining nature and purpose of journey it might cut down on the dishonesty which seems to me more likely when a simple signature is requested ?

Just a thought. But maybe it would be too much of an invasion of privacy to ask people to say where they were going and why ?
But it did seem odd to me when I was the one driving that DH had to fill in the form as car happens to be registered in his name.
(As I mentioned a year later the same thing happened to him)

lottieandmia Fri 08-Mar-13 14:42:25

Why does it matter that the woman he cheated with was a lesbian? Adultery is adultery - her sexuality not relevant.

I agree that they should know about his criminal activity but telling a child their father wanted to abort them is just cruel and not fair to the child. A lot of people consider an abortion, decide to have the child anyway and never ever look back afterwards. I am certainly not sticking up for him - I think he is awful but it's manipulative and nasty to say that to a child imo.

EldritchCleavage Fri 08-Mar-13 14:49:15

It isn't wrong per se to want to end or consider ending an unplanned pregnancy. It certainly is wrong to pressure the mother into ending a pregnancy.

As we know from threads on here some couples have very difficult times deciding what to do for lots of cogent reasons. We only have one person's version of what was said and why over ending the pregnancies, or even that it happened at all. Much as I loathe the Huhne person, I would be slow to decide he had definitely tried to force VP to abort. He may have done, he may not. I bear in mind her limited credibility (given the initial invented claim that an activist took the points).

Xenia Fri 08-Mar-13 14:57:14

I don't think such honesty to children who are nearly 20 is wrong at all. Far too many adulterous men think their wives should not even mention they strayed so then the child is very very puzzled and thinks the child is to blame when instead it was the father's fault (and of course sometimes the other way round). We are not talking about 5 year old children here.

Also I suspect the Huhne children know only too well what their father is like and hardly needed the court to make it clear. Mr Huhne is the real loser in all this caused entirely by his conduct.

It would be a surprising thing to make up for a court. It seems pretty likely to me that he may have suggested it.

Yes, it was irrelevant his adultery was with a bisexual in a civil partnership although the fact she was with someone else is particularly nasty too as two relationships were broken up, not just the Huhne marriage and the lover (who is in PR and then tried to get an injunction to protect her own privacy when she often sold stories to the press - she failed obviously) did brief the press pretty nastily about Vicky P in 2010.

Xenia Fri 08-Mar-13 14:58:51
olgaga Fri 08-Mar-13 15:21:30

She'll never get on the MPC now, or have her own political career, but she'll get over this. She'll always be a top economist - her career is far from over. Even if she does serve a custodial sentence I imagine she'll use the time to outline a book or two on the Eurozone crisis.

There's plenty of work in economic crisis punditry - and will be for some time!

I agree with Xenia (a first!). Her children are adults, you can't protect them forever. After what Huhne did to the family with such arrogance and callous disregard, I doubt anything would surprise them about his behaviour.

LineRunner Fri 08-Mar-13 15:39:42

Carina Trimingham may well deserve Chris Huhne.

They both committed a crime and must face the consequences. The pair of them should hang their heads in shame for airing their dirty laundry in public - the damage that they have done to their family is probably irreparable. I'm sure they will have plenty of time to consider the harm and hurt they have caused - and all the wasted time and money of the court process.

CardinalRichelieu Fri 08-Mar-13 15:55:53

It's not just a matter of telling the children though (although I would not myself) it's the fact that the course of action she chose meant telling EVERYONE. I would think my mother an utter fuckwit if she did such a thing. For me it would definitely be worse than one parent cheating on the other (which happens quite a lot). Their poor kid has had his private text messages to his dad splashed all over the press. OK, Huhne sparked the whole thing off with his points dodging but all of that personal stuff would never have come out if Pryce hadn't decided to blab to the papers. Such a major error. I hope the whole family can get over it.

BerylStreep Fri 08-Mar-13 16:02:41

Xenia, I have the judgement you linked before - it is very enlightening.

I have never heard the phrase pyrric victory before - somehow it makes me think of every time Ireland win the Eurovision song contest, it means they have to shell out hosting it the next year. <sorry, a bit random>

CinnabarRed Fri 08-Mar-13 16:04:27

A couple of posters have said that VP's family responsibilities will be a mitigating factor for sentencing. Why would that be? Their children are adults now, so not dependent on her, surely? (That's not to minimise the damage that this case will have done to them, BTW.)

Another poster said they thought she shouldn't be imprisoned because she's not a danger to society. True. However, to my mind that's only one of the purposes of sending people to prison. There are at least 4 that I can think of.

1. Punishment
2. Deterrent to others
3. Rehabilitation/education
4. Segregation from society

VP would fall within 1 and 2, I would have thought.

yellowbrickrd Fri 08-Mar-13 16:23:21

It's not just a question of the children being at an age to understand what their father is like. It's that they have been used as human shields to try to protect Pryce from the mess she created so that any detail of their private life, even pre-birth fgs, becomes fair game for the media to feed on.

Definitely 1 and 2 - expect a hefty vindictive sentence to make an example of both of them.

clam Fri 08-Mar-13 16:27:37

So, imagine the scene. You're sitting at home and your spouse comes in and says "I've been caught speeding and I will lose my licence. Will you take the points on my behalf?" (or in this case, no 'asking,' more "just sign here.")
Your reply "No of course not, that's a lie and illegal."
Spouse says, "you must, as I've already declared you as the driver. If you refuse, I will not only lose my licence but go to prison."
Your reply?

Seriously? Honestly? How many people would point blank refuse to go along with it (however furious/nervous/worried) if it really meant that their spouse would go to prison AND.. they thought they would probably get away with it.?

BerylStreep Fri 08-Mar-13 16:34:29

I wouldn't. I would lose my job.

I know someone who has got his mother AND his father to take points for him, and I have nothing but contempt for him. The person I know almost killed his friend as a result of a crash, and he still drives too fast.

clam Fri 08-Mar-13 16:40:39

Lose your job how? Why? For having any points at all? And what if you were persuaded to believe that you'd get away with it? And that your partner would certainly go to jail if you refused.

<<disclaimer: am playing devil's advocate here>>

AugustaLoveday Fri 08-Mar-13 16:48:01

I for one would refuse point blank. If I had a spouse who thought like that, I'd think that prison was where he belonged.

In the Pryce/Huhne case, I think that's where they both belong. They are as bad as one another. I feel sorry for their children, though.

limitedperiodonly Fri 08-Mar-13 16:48:15

clam I agree that swapping points is a common thing for married couples to do.

I'm not entirely convinced of the story that Huhne filled in her name secretly and then presented the second form for her to sign at a later date as a fait accompli.

But as Huhne didn't give evidence either way then that's the version we must accept.

limitedperiodonly Fri 08-Mar-13 16:53:23

Really augusta? Gosh, that's principled of you.

yellowbrickrd Fri 08-Mar-13 16:55:43

Why the sarcasm limited? Many people would refuse, not neccessarily out of morality but because they would be scared of the consequences - as this case demonstrates in spades.

Xenia Fri 08-Mar-13 16:56:40

It's a likely result. She refused. He sent it off.
he needed his licence to drive to the air port twice a week to fly abroad to waste tax payer money in the over paid huge expenses MEP position he held and needed a car for that. Then after she against her preferences signed the form and then shortly after he speeded yet again and lost his licence anyway!

So the youngest child is now at university so at least both parents being in prison will not be an immediate problem in terms of who cares for the children.

limitedperiodonly Fri 08-Mar-13 17:04:56

Because it was an unequivocably principled reply, not one driven by fear, and that surprised me yellowbrickrd.

amothersplaceisinthewrong Fri 08-Mar-13 17:09:44

Married couples do swap points....

Pryce and Huhne deserve their jail terms. Shame on them both for the way their kids have had to be dragged this mess. No way was she coerced, glad the jury delivered that verdict. had she been a Norma Major doormousey type she might have convinced a jury..

catsrus Fri 08-Mar-13 17:12:23

ah yes amothersplace because we know that only mousy women suffer from any kind of abuse, including EA........ strong women can't be bullied by their husbands. That's alright then hmm.

yellowbrickrd Fri 08-Mar-13 17:14:45

But I think we have to accept that there are people who act out of principle don't we limited? I am much more equivocal about rules and, like most people, probably tend to stick to them because of fear of consequences rather than a strong belief that it is the 'right' thing to do.

That doesn't mean I don't believe other people can have principles or that it would be right for me to mock them for it.

hackmum Fri 08-Mar-13 17:15:23

Beryl: "Hackmum, that's very interesting about the burden of proof. Were there reporting restrictions during the 2nd trial? I thought it strange that none of the detail of the second trial was reported when it was ongoing."

Sorry for being so slow in replying to this (and to others who asked): I have software that blocks my use of Mumsnet between 10 and 5, otherwise I'd never get anything done.

I don't know about reporting restrictions in the second trial - I assumed that the papers just got fed up of reporting the same stuff all over again, but I don't know.

Here's a link to a piece mentioning the Human Rights Act:

Hugglepuff Fri 08-Mar-13 17:16:29

I agree Pagwatch - they are as bad as each other.
Interesting how she was able to take his points when she was still in the marriage - but only spilt the beans on him once she knew about his affair.
Also , if she genuinely felt that she had been co-erced , and she felt the need to come clean SEVERAL years later - why did she feel the need to discuss the case with a national newspaper?
Both should be really ashamed of their behaviour and what they have put their children through ( not to mention taxpayers money !)

KatieMiddleton Fri 08-Mar-13 17:20:17

I can completely see how that would happen Clam. I discussed that very scenario with my dh last night and the one conclusion I came to is that i don't think dh would ever put me in that position. If he did I would have to reevaluate out whole marriage and wonder who the hell I was married to. I would then be left with two choices:

1. Do what he wanted so that he wouldn't get into trouble for lying and my family life would not be compromised
2. Refuse to do it and risk the horrible atmosphere at home, the home my children live in. There would possibly be rows and bullying and recriminations.

I can see how either option would make me miserable and question my relationship. But would it be enough to make me leave and destroy my children's home life? Probably not. Not as a one off.

I can totally understand the bitterness and the anger Vicky Pryce felt when Chris Huhne fucked off with ow. She sacrificed her principles and integrity on the understanding she was doing it to protect her family life, a life with him in it. It is an awful betrayal.

Yes, she has not behaved brilliantly since but she is guilty of being naïve of how the media works more than anything else. She thought she could control it but she can't. Nobody can. You are totally at the mercy of whatever angle a journo decides to use. Until you have been the subject of a story you couldn't possibly understand how things can get out of hand and that the smart option is almost always to say nothing to the press.

I wouldn't take them on principle. If somebody has wracked up so many points that they are going to lose their licence they need to learn a lesson or 2 about safe driving. I don't care if that person is my husband. In fact that is more likely to mean I won't take them. I don't want to be driven round by a nutcase who thinks it is OK to drive dangerously even if I have the misfortune to be married to him!

hackmum Fri 08-Mar-13 17:24:11

Did anyone else read the correspondence between Vicky Pryce and Isabel Oakeshott, the Sunday Times journalists? (It's in The Guardian and probably elsewhere.) Neither of them come out of it terribly well. Pryce seems really vindictive and Oakeshott is clearly just after a good story. (I mean, I know that obviously all journalists want a good story, but she should surely have realised the possible consequences for Pryce.)

I like to think that if I had separated from someone in the same circumstances as Pryce broke up with Huhne that, however vindictive I felt, I would stop myself from acting on it, if only to protect the children. She clearly set out to ruin his political career, and that's pretty horrible - even if he was a bastard to her.

squeaver Fri 08-Mar-13 17:24:35

Another very valuable lesson from this case: DON'T TALK TO THE PRESS

Hackmum - spouses cheat on each other all the time. Most of the wronged spouses don't go for all out revenge for the sake of their children. It strikes me that there is something very wrong about these two. They clearly had a toxic relationship. You'd think she would be grateful to be out of it. Her children already hated their father for leaving so what she thought she was doing by piling on more grief I don't know.

yellowbrickrd Fri 08-Mar-13 17:30:40

I don't think it was 'naive' (a much misused word) of Pryce to think she could control the media. I think it was arrogant and blind. She knew enough about how the media works to realise she could use them to take Huhne down.

KatieMiddleton Fri 08-Mar-13 17:34:01

Yes perhaps arrogant rather than naive. But I really don't think she did know enough or she wouldn't have done it.

yellowbrickrd Fri 08-Mar-13 17:40:08

When your mind is on revenge you don't think straight. I wonder if she had friends/family who advised her against it? We've probably all been angry enough to want to hit out at someone but have weighed it up and seen sense. I think it does say something about Pryce's character that that didn't happen with her.

I think the thing that she and the journalist forgot was that by taking the points she also had committed a crime. I must admit I didn't think of that when I first heard the rumours, I just thought that it would mean Huhne having to resign.

limitedperiodonly Fri 08-Mar-13 17:40:15

Yes, we do, don't we yellowbrickrd?

In some circumstances I'd sign even though I'd be scared of the consequences.

So I'm genuinely surprised when people have high principles, so high that they'd lead to their husband going to jail.

That's why I asked.

KatieMiddleton Fri 08-Mar-13 17:50:01

There is also a difference of scale and opportunity. Most of us will never find ourselves in that position because we lead much more humble lives.

clam Fri 08-Mar-13 17:54:12

Actually, the consequences weren't to do with the fact that she signed, inasmuch as they did get away with it. For ten years. All those lib-dems people who allegedly knew about it weren't telling and still aren't.

The only reason it all came to light was because she was out to bring him down after he left her.

And by the way, did we ever get to the bottom of how Chris Huhne was intending to explain away the circumstances of where his BMW was parked whilst he was away in Brussels? If it was in the airport carpark (surely easy to check up on?) then how on earth could VP have ever been driving it, if she was in London that evening?

mrsshackleton Fri 08-Mar-13 17:54:51

yellowbrick she and the journalist KNEW it was a crime, they specifically discuss this in the emails, her one reservation is she might get into trouble but the journalist says if she plays the "I was bullied" card, she'll get off.

Amazing and yes, arrogant, not naive.

sarahtigh Fri 08-Mar-13 17:55:44

no I do not think it is inappropiate to tell a child at any stage that his father or mother wanted an abortion

loads of people when finding themselves pregnant consider abortion there must be a thread on this at least once a week, not everyone considering it goes through with it, it would be incredibly mean and ill judged to tell the resulting child at any point that I/ we considered aborting you

most people who consider abortion and then decide to continue with pregnancy do not love the child less etc ok some parents ( mostly fathers but some mothers may either walk away or resent child but huhne did not whatever has happenned he seems to have acted like reasonable father to the boy for 17 years, neither parent have treated him or his privacy with any respect in past 1-2 years

incidentally I do not think having 12 points on your licence means going to jail, driving ban yes prison no... unless for reckless driving dangerous driving death by reckless driving but not an accumulation of speeding points

so your DP getting speeding points will not result in jail but I can see that someone could be tempted if they would lose their job if they lost their licence

I still would not do it but i do understand

yellowbrickrd Fri 08-Mar-13 18:01:24

Thanks mrsshackleton I didn't know that - makes it even more astounding, she must have been so blinded by rage.

katemiddleton yes, that's her undoing in a way, that she had access to the press because of her and his status and knew they would want a juicy story. But even for us humble people the basic idea is the same - if you have been really hurt by someone and felt a burning sense of injustice you would probably want to do something to get back at them. You might plot all kinds of revenge but ultimately come to your senses knowing that it won't give you peace of mind or get back what you've lost.

I would expect an intelligent person like Pryce to have come to that conclusion.

KatieMiddleton Fri 08-Mar-13 18:39:44

Or we do it but it's not anywhere as interesting or sensational. For example:

Telling the ex's boss that he wasn't sick that day at work like he claimed but was on holiday with you.

Forwarding an email to ex-mil when her son slags her off

EBaying the ex's car

Cutting up his suits

All are possible for most of us and yes, some people do it but the difference is it's not of national interest. It's also amazing how cavalier other people are about someone else taking revenge; egging them on with little thought for the consequences.

Mogyzogwon Fri 08-Mar-13 18:56:27

A massive waste of police resouces and further huge public expense for the long drawn out trail. I hope the judge bangs them both up good 'n proper which they justly deserve and presses them hard for all costs which must be enormous to the tax payer. A very sad business that the children had to suffer especially the boy/abortion.

limitedperiodonly Fri 08-Mar-13 19:18:14

Bloody hell squeaver. I nodded off while reading that piece you linked to. I'd advise people to stick to your warning. Much more succinct.

limitedperiodonly Fri 08-Mar-13 19:48:58

I read the Pryce/Oakeshott exchange hackmum and I was thinking: 'have you two never heard of having a quiet chat over a cup of coffee?'

Madness to write it all down. I don't blame Oakeshott for wanting the story. It's all about having a chair when the music stops and she did. But though Oakeshott will survive that doesn't mean she's not stupid.

I think arrogance and naivety are the flip sides of the same coin. Stupidity's in there somewhere too but I can't place it in that analogy.

Roll on Constance Briscoe.

limitedperiodonly Fri 08-Mar-13 20:27:17

BigBoobiedBertha Sorry, I'm sure Augusta has much better things to do on a Friday evening and that's why she hasn't responded, but I have to know the answer from someone who's expressed a similar view.

Are you seriously saying that you'd let your husband go to jail, possibly jeopardising your family's entire economic position, just to teach him a lesson about speeding?

Because fuck me, some people are far more principled than I am.

Chubfuddler Fri 08-Mar-13 20:29:08

I think that guardian journalist has read this thread. The fortinbras analogy was made here yesterday.

Bessie123 Fri 08-Mar-13 21:21:41

limitedperiodonly there is no reason to think ch would have gone to jail if vp had refused to sign. It would have been fairly easy for him to say he had made a mistake with the previous form and get it re-issued; possibly there would have been a small fine for the time delay.

thewhistler Fri 08-Mar-13 21:39:02

The thing I find extraordinary is that she was naive about the press. She was chief economist, Fgs, in a govt dept, married to a politician. Govt depts are massively press conscious. Ditto politicians.

She allowed her intellect to be overruled and to take a risk for her family by her desire for revenge.

I can sort of understand her not weighing up the legal risk correctly if her legal friend( s) were saying it was ok.

But seriously poor judgment.

Ok then. Having read the whole thread <<pant>> I totally agree that neither one of them is coming out of this whole sorry affair looking good.

I have been wondering whether CH might have (finally) admitted to the original offense in order to daub VP in? Does any legal-eagel here know where VP would stand if he had continued to deny getting her to take his points? If it had gone to court and he'd been acquitted, then presumable she could not have been charged with perjury etc. If he had been convicted, but continued to deny it, would she then still be in trouble?

They both come across as entirely out of touch with the rest of society, considering themselves as in some way 'special' or more equal than others hmm, self-absorbed, convinced of their own importance at the risk of hurting their family beyond repair. Whether or not they end up spending significant time inside (and I hope they do), they can never undo the damage done. And I so hope the CPS will manage to claw some money back from them angry.

limitedperiodonly Fri 08-Mar-13 21:42:09

You're right Bessie. I was thinking that WRT the idea that I might be unlucky enough to be married to Huhne and therefore have to think of a way out of this annoying mess.

If married to a very rich man who didn't drive for a living I'd definitely say: 'Can't you just say you've made a mistake and send it back?' and hire a driver and put it on your tax return you tight git

Redbindy Fri 08-Mar-13 21:57:19

I think that she is a great example to all women. To risk going to jail (and she will) for revenge against a twunt like him deserves only praise. I hope he gets a nice rough boyfriend wherever he ends up doing time.

limitedperiodonly Fri 08-Mar-13 22:00:44

Yeah, Vicky Pryce is definitely my role model.

moondog Fri 08-Mar-13 22:27:47

Listen to this.

Itsalwaysraining Fri 08-Mar-13 22:45:02

A recent survey suggests that women who say they would never, ever ever take their husband's points for him also refuse to swallow.

frumpet Fri 08-Mar-13 22:48:44

I just don't get it , I really don't . The facts as I see them are , he commited a speeding offence , he then broke the law by falsifying evidence . She then broke the law by perverting the cause of justice by knowingly allowing her details to be used falsely. So they are both guilty of breaking the law . The law is absolute .

Why on earth she thought she would be given a soft ride for hiding the fact that she had broken the law for several years , i have no idea . Mad as a box of frogs bint . Did she honestly think the law would take into account her husbands affair or the fact that he is an odious twat ? I mean , REALLY ?????

The fact that her husband is a philandering scrotum cheeked pustule on the arse cheek of humanity is neither here nor there , SHE broke the law.

LessMissAbs Fri 08-Mar-13 22:49:35

The courts in this country are much harder on women than men. Yes, its still a serious matter, but I don't see why someone should be jailed for this, when men who father children and fail to pay child maintenance are not.

I think the jury was wrong. I do think it was marital coercion. She wouldn't have taken the points unless she was married, what other motive could she have had?

Chris Huhne is yet another example of a passive psychopath who made a name in politics.

Itsalwaysraining Fri 08-Mar-13 23:11:07

Don't hold back, Frumpet, tell it like it is.

Itsalwaysraining Fri 08-Mar-13 23:13:44

I think the jury was wrong. I do think it was marital coercion. She wouldn't have taken the points unless she was married, what other motive could she have had? she could maintain her entitled and privileged lifestyle in the higher echelons of society?

Blu Fri 08-Mar-13 23:22:17

"I have been wondering whether CH might have (finally) admitted to the original offense in order to daub VP in? Does any legal-eagel here know where VP would stand if he had continued to deny getting her to take his points? If it had gone to court and he'd been acquitted, then presumable she could not have been charged with perjury etc."

He changed his plea once he realised the prosecution had the material from his son, didn't he? In the text exchange with his son he says 'I have no intention of sending Mum to Holloway' - knowing that admitting to having got her to take points would do just that. In truth, having acted like a git thorughout, there is at least some homour towards her in hiding his own guilt to protect her. She just talked herself into a cell, really.

I am astounded that people think it perfectly OK to 'swap points'. Would anyone think it normal to take a conviction for burglary, say, or theft? Is it because people confuse getting a speeding fine with non-criminal matters like driving in a bus lane?

Blu Fri 08-Mar-13 23:25:27

There is a specific definition of marital coercion - it means she had absolutely no way she could have declined. No possibility of choice in the matter. It doesn't mean put under a lot of pressure and shouted at.

She could have declined. he may well have put her under extreme pressure, she probably did feel over a barrel because he had already said she was drivin, but she was unable to prove that she was 100% forced against her will. That's the definition of marital coercion.

Dromedary Fri 08-Mar-13 23:57:16

When you put it like that, Blu, it makes it clear that this defence is very outdated (which is why it is hardly ever used). It was obviously designed for the kind of society in which wives were basically the slaves of their husbands, and would be completely done for if the marriage broke up (which hardly ever happened in those days). Husbands held a huge amount of power. These days, and in this culture, such a defence doesn't make much sense.

LineRunner Sat 09-Mar-13 00:24:56

I imagine it would make more sense as a defence where the marriage vows require a wife to 'obey'.

kandle Sat 09-Mar-13 07:26:48

I can't believe she thought she'd get away with it. The arrogence of these people never ceases to amaze me

Xenia Sat 09-Mar-13 08:11:14

Yes, as Blu said the text to his son was particularly manipulative. I know who I think comes out of this worse and it is not VP. It must have particularly rankled with VP that she went against her preference of not taking the points and then the silly idiot was done for speeding a few months later and lost his licence anyway. You'd have thought he might have considered other road users, risks of killing someone etc etc but not as ever he put himself first.

BoneyBackJefferson Sat 09-Mar-13 08:52:58

Why are so many posters playing the "poor little wsoman" stereotype?

For all we know it could have been her suggestion to do this.

hackmum Sat 09-Mar-13 09:32:40

Boney: the evidence from her own children is that she was pressured by Huhne to take the points.

I'm inclined to believe her when she says he put a lot of pressure on her. And I think a lot of women would, given the choice, prefer to protect their marriage than to write to the police and say "My husband is lying, I wasn't driving that day" with the possible consequences that would entail.

That said, we are all responsible for our own actions, aren't we? Ultimately it was her decision to take the points and she has to accept the consequences of it.

galbers Sat 09-Mar-13 09:49:51

If the archaic defence of marital coercion had been accepted this would mean that she was somehow saying she was subservient to her husband's will and had absolutely no choice. A cop out for an adult woman (or indeed man who doesn't have that defence) it is an archaic defence that should have been removed years ago.

They both did wrong and by her actions it all came out. If they had both been honest at an early stage in proceedings enormous CPS police and court resources would not have been wasted. Both were egregiously dishonest to the end. Both deserve to be found guilty.

Having said that a degree of duress in her case should perhaps result in mitigation in sentencing for her.

Xenia Sat 09-Mar-13 09:50:09

The evidence is that it was Huhne's proposal. It is not that people are taking gender based sides. It is based on the facts as established at the trial.

Blu Sat 09-Mar-13 10:57:27

Well, if the familiy's objective, after the event, was to keep everyone out of prison, the son's text to CH practically guaranteed that they both WOULD go to prison, the only possible qualifier being that the son's texts implied pressure. But not to the extent of the legal definition of marital coercion.

Even in the recorded phone call you can see that what CH is doing (clearly aware of the possbility of recorded calls) is saying that it didn't happen and that VP should say the whole points-swap was a malicious press rumour - a tactic which would, again, have kept them both out of prison. She of course was doing the same thing to some extent. Trying to 'nail' CH while escaping her part in it - lying about the aide and then claiming marital coercion.

Morally of course CH is the worse because he did the crime, sought to escape the legal consequences of his crime and lied on the form saying his wife was driving. And then continued with cynical tactics as decribed above to try and maintain the lie and escape justice. .

But the law is the law, not the Jeremy Kyle show or The Moral Maze, and it seems to me that they have both viewed the justice system as an expedient means to their own ends. Him to drive as he likes without sanction, her to use it as a way to avenge her ruined marriage. Both have been caugt out. Boo hoo.

And frankly, though I sympathise with the children (who wouldn't with those parents) , the son, who is intelligent enough for the higher education he enjoys should also have know what he was condemning his mother to when he sent those obviously consciously incriminating texts, saved them, and offered them as evidence.

hackmum Sat 09-Mar-13 11:38:11

Blu, I broadly agree with you, but I think you're wrong about the son. All the son's texts said were that his father had pressured his mother into taking the points. Pryce had already admitted taking the points, so the texts didn't incriminate her in any way. Rather, they supported her claim of coercion.

Blu Sat 09-Mar-13 12:19:51

Yes, my scenario is in the context that at the time of the texts CH was still maintaining that no points had been swapped, and had the family's objective been to keep everyone out of prison, it sould have been tactically better not to have done that. Dishonest, for sure, and therefore morally unacceptable, but in terms of protecting both CH and his mother from prison, more successful.

However he seems to have either been wanting pure and simple truth, or to support his mother's tactic of 'nailing' CH and getting off herself. The texts were lengthy, detailed and full of exposition, so I wonder if it wasn't the seocnd motive - supoprting his mother's tactics - rather than being on the side of truth.

But there are so many things about all this that we will never know.

And it must be bloody rough for the grown up children. All of it.

Xenia Sat 09-Mar-13 14:47:56

I don't think it can be said it was wrong to raise marital coercion. It exists. The first jury almost got to the point of finding there was marital coercion. VP would never have relied on the defence if there were not a reasonable prospect of its succeeding.

All this stemmed from a man who chose to commit adultery and suggest a criminal offence to his wife.

higgle Sat 09-Mar-13 14:59:42

I think she was, as her friend said on radio 4 the other evening, badly advised by her lawyers. There is nothing barristers like more than running this sort of technical defence.

Blu Sat 09-Mar-13 15:22:13

Xenia - re the first jurygrinnly by specualting about things that were not raised in the trial, like was she religious and had she promised to obey. I'm sure we could all conjure up imaginative circumstances in which coercion could happen, but the account of coercion as described by VP in the court was not sufficient to meet the legal definition of marital coercion.

Surely the 'marital coercion' will now be removed from the statutes? And coercion judges as any form of coercion would be judged whether or not to parties are married? The defence of marital coercion is not available to people in civil partnerships or cohabiting. And yet a wife in a marriage would be protected in that she would get her share of marital assets if her H threatened to chuck her out as part of the coercion, whereas a cohabiting woman living as a sahm in the hime of a man whose name is on the deeds is actually far more vulnerable and therefore coercion more easily affected, perhaps.

Anyway, there are other laws to cover 's/he told me to do it'.

Blu Sat 09-Mar-13 15:22:54

No idea where that grin came from!

catsrus Sat 09-Mar-13 16:07:16

I don't think anyone, least of all VP, is playing into a poor little woman stereotype. What some of us are trying to say is that even strong intelligent, capable women can suff