to feel sorry for Vengeful Vicky? The Price was too high...

[Corygal]

Honestly. Huhne actually did the crime. She was just trying to out the brute. Fine reward for being a grass, the police are always saying they protect you if you do - yep.

Deeply misogynist, to boot. A sharp slap to the uppity wife who had the cheek to ask to be treated like a human being - now she's called a harridan, a witch, and, of course, overemotional 'blinded by rage and grief' acc the judge.

I have no sympathy for Vicky Pryce. Agree with Clawdy. What she did to their children, in particular their son, was unforgivable. She has destroyed her husband's reputation but she should never have dragged her children into this.

Echocave,

Completely agree with you - for some on here Oakshott was 'just doing her job' (where have we hard that before). To me, she was posing as being a supportive friend whilst looking to exploit the situation for her own ends which has ultimately lead to her 'friend' being imprisoned.

It's unfair I feel for Ms Oakeshott to come out of it badly.

Echocave, I'm interested why you feel that Ms Oakeshott even needed to warn her of the personal risks, I'm still of the view that if I was to approach a journalist with a story for whatever reason, the risks would be entirely mine and only mine. I'm not sure why so many feel Pryce wasn't intelligent enough to figure this out for herself. Whether Ms O as on maternity leave or not is irrelevant and I'm not entirely sure she posed as a friend, she made it very clear she wanted the story.

ElBurro, why do you think she was posing as a supportive friend ? No, she was always fully clear she was a journalist wanting a story.. it's not like Vicky Pryce spilled the beans to her without knowing she was a journalist, she made no pretence that she wanted anything but the story.

HJ - Because Pryce was in a vulnerable state of mental turmoil about her breakup and not acting rationally as a result. What Oakshott did is exploitative and opportunistic and to add insult to injury she now gets even more column inches describing the guilt that she now feels for her role in sending the pair to prison.

I guess that's where we differ ElBurro, I struggle to see Pryce as vulnerable and suffering from mental turmoil. She was seeking revenge for a husband leaving her, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure that's my definition of vulnerable.

I agree it might not have been her finest most rational moment, but, personally I feel that she knew exactly what she was doing. Ms Oakeshott did nothing more than let her tell the story. Yes of course she encouraged her and took the opportunity - I don't know any journalist that wouldn't have, however, I don't agree she exploited her. As other's have said, Pryce would have taken any opportunity to 'nail her husband'.

What makes you doubt that Oakeshott isn't sincere in her feelings of guilt? she is after all a mother herself, so perhaps she feels guilty in this sense. Does one not consider Oakeshott could have been naive too.

HappyJoyful, I do see your point but the way the article is written suggests that she did see herself as a friend of sorts to VP and suggests they spent a lot of time together. I'm sure VP saw IO as a means to an end too but there is something distasteful about IO's trumpeted sympathy. I really think she was annoyed at the double cross and sought to make it look like she'd been dumped on after spending time during her leave on this. I'd almost rather she was more straightforwardly hard faced about their dealings.
Mind you, had it not been for the article, I probably wouldn't have this opinion of IO. But her attempt to put herself beyond criticism in a fairly miserable tale (most of all for the wider Huhne family) sticks in my craw.

Oakshott herself describes Pryce as 'unhinged' and 'painfully thin'. To me, this is a description of someone who needs professional help and friends / colleagues looking out for her. She certainly did not need to be encouraged in her madcap fantasies of revenge against her ex husband. As I said no one comes out of this looking good and yes Oakshott should feel some guilt. Oakshott did a lot more than just let Pryce 'telll her story'.

Oakshott is a journalist so she is going to sensationalise her article by calling Pryce unhinged and painfully thin. IMO Pryce knew what she was doing going to the media and I would imagine she thought she would be able to convince the court that she was coerced, particularly by going to such great lengths to wreck her whole family's lives, and therefore escape punishment.

I'm not widely read or knowledgeable about this alleged friendship, I see in the emails she suggests a break (and an opportunity to write the story together) would be fun, but I still don't feel they would have spent that much time together.

I guess IO's in some sense stuck between rock and hard plate - if she doesn't come out in sympathy she'll take flak and if she tries to show sympathy she gets flak. Rightly or wrongly I think she does feel she is beyond criticism.. certainly Chris or Vicky didn't think of their wider family, not sure why the journalist should. There are some personal and harsh threads and comments on places such as Twitter that certainly suggest IO is far too straightforward and hard nosed, again, she can't do right for doing wrong!

I think for a young(ish!) woman succeeding, as she has done, in the dog eat dog world of mixed up fucked up journalism she's carved out quite a career.. she is after all the first female political editor of the Sunday Times.

People who speed can cause great injury to other law abiding drivers and pedestrians.

This has been lost in the mists of media twaddle.

So, as this will be a great deterrant to other speeders it is a good outcome.

Agree with Timothy, she's got to sensationalise her story and thus would describe Pryce in those terms. Where were her friends to stop her running to journalists? I think it all comes down to how one perceives Pryce. What else did she do other than get a story? She didn't trap her into it or blackmail her?

I think it still comes down to the bottom line of whether ones believes Pryce was responsible for her own actions, however irrational or rational they may have been.

I honestly think it's the tone of the article that is the problem. The comments below the article are generally very critical of it - that IO puts herself at the centre of the story etc. doubt that's true in fact, as VP went to the MoS, the court case would have occurred anyway.

But one journalist with an inflated ego aside, Sringdiva makes a good point. Huhne seems to have been a terrible driver for years. In the end, although I do feel sorry for VP in a way, the justice system has done what it is there for.

I guess it's a hard tone to get right. I'm not sure she has an inflated ego though, I still think she's doing a job a she's paid to do.

Springdiva, well made point. The stupidity in it is Huhne got the points anyway three weeks later or something crazy for talking on his mobile. Shame this message and the dangers of speeding have got lost in a case, maybe like you say there is now justice.

I agree with what aj and jjmum said.
There is no question though that British courts deal more harshly with female criminals than male hence the judges personal remarks in this case.

Source?
Not saying its wrong, just saying id question it as its been stated a couple of times on here as though its common knowledge.
And I haven't seen any evidence of it and I don't know what people are defining "harsher" as
Are women getting longer sentences for similar crimes at first offence or just first offences regardless of the offence? As the second option wouldn't really prove anythibg

I do feel a bit sorry for VP. She has been made out to be a vindictive harpy but if she was it's no wonder. She supported CH financially while he chased his political ambitions, took points for him, had an abortion she doesn't seem to have wanted, gave up career advancement and lord knows what else and he repaid her by letting her know, on his way to the gym, that the marriage was over and that he was having an affair with a friend. Most women would be raging in those circumstances but luckily for them they did not have judge friends advising them about marital coercion or newspapers ready to print the results of the emotional fallout and her husband's disgrace.

I think she would have eventually realised that CT had done her a massive favour by taking an arrogant entitled twat off her hands and got on with her life. The smugness oozes out of him - I feel sorry for her that she couldn't see it and it's too late now.

Any sympathy is lessened by the fact that she was prepared to implicate an innocent party rather than take responsibility for her own part in the deception - even if she was coerced. Also making it public that CH had wanted their youngest son aborted. As someone above said, that should go with you to the grave - truly unforgivable and I dread to think of the damage that has been done to their son.

Er, YY northwitch

I dotn really feel sorry for her she knew what she was doing in the first place, but i do think sending either of them to prison is such a waste of money, they should have had a fine maybe some comunity service, and a driving ban for him. It may be for perverting the course of justice but it wasnt that serious a crime

Perverting the course of justice and perjury are the most serious crimes because if we let people get away with lying in court we might as well pack up and go home.

And I speak as someone who'd take speeding points under certain circumstances.

did the wanker judge even take their kids into account? I am so annoyed

8 months, sheesh

feel very sad for them both tbh

I just feel so sad about this. No one has won. CH comes across as such an entitled wanker, his OW sold stories about the sex lives of other LibDems, VP seemed so bent on hurting CH she never stopped to think about the consequences.It's just a horrible mess.

But one thing I'm not sure of - the CH trying to get VP to abort their youngest story. Did VP release this publically? Or was it part of her defence that he behaved that way? Because if it were part of her defence, I can understand her allowing her legal team to make it public, to show what an utter bar steward CH was. If she leaked it, then that's just fucked up.

I think she used it as part of her defence of marital coercion. I still think it was wrong to use it though. Her children testified on her behalf that CH had bullied her into taking the points, she could have just used the first abortion and kept quiet about the second attempt by him to coerce her into one (their son) and CH is such an obnoxious twat that I am quite sure she must have had loads of other examples of bullying behaviour that she could have used to back up her claim.

If not she should have just abandoned her attempt to take revenge. This admission would do tremendous damage to their son even if learned in private. He also has to cope with it being splashed all over the papers at a young age. I don't know what she was thinking - totally selfish behaviour.

There have been various references in the press to VP's poor state of health, presumably her fragile emotional state. She certainly does not look at all well and I am amazed that her legal team did not submit psychiatric evidence as part of the mitigation on sentencing (or perhaps they did but there has been no mention of it).

In my view, VP should have had her sentence suspended - it would still have sent a strong message to other would be offenders - but prison is the last place she should be.

You know what's really sickening - this man lied to the voters about being a family man, lied to his wife and family, told VP that his new role would lead to a conflict of interest with her job so she resigned - although he was presumably planning to run away with his mistress at the time. By my standards, these actions are far more immoral than lying to an anonymous body about speeding points - although I'm not saying that's right.

I am equally sure that she raised to issue to 'get back at him', at a time that she would have been totally distressed, and not knowing who her true friends were (I would imagine). At the time, she probably thought that any punishment she received would be worth it, just to knock him off his pedestal. I wonder what she thinks now.

So sad.

Dolce, the reason she didn't get considered for a suspended sentence was that she pleaded not guilty then tried to use the marital coercion as her defence.
Had she admitted, like everyone knew, that she had taken the points and pleaded guilty to this, with mitigating circumstances such as the marital coersion and poor emotional health perhaps then my understand is that then they would have looked at a suspended sentence. Huge waste of court time and resources.