Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Chris Huhne changes plea to guilty

372 replies

NicholasTeakozy · 04/02/2013 11:03

BBC link here. I reckon that's the end of his political career then.

OP posts:
EmmelineGoulden · 08/02/2013 10:14

'His initial lie led to a situation where she either had to devastate her kids and family by refusing to go along with it'

An unpleasent choice is not coercion. I don't think that's a good enough reason to pervert the course of justice. And I don't really see it as a situation particular to being a wife rather than a spouse.

The EA aspect elicits more sympathy (from me) - that seems to be a more gendered situation because of our culture, and certainly research (and the relationship boards here) demonstrate that being a high powered professional isn't mutually exclusive with being abused in your personal life. Hard to know what evidence you'd have as a wife who was coerced, but it's a defence, the onus is on her to prove it happened. The assumption is that she is an adult who can make her own decisions. So far the evidence is a bit vague on that side of it.

Xenia · 08/02/2013 10:20

It may well be coercion. The jury will decide whether it tipped over that line based on the relationship between them and how it was on that day.

wellcoveredsparerib · 08/02/2013 11:13

So when Constance Briscoe was arrested last year it was in relation to this?

I bet she is thrilled to have been dragged into this mess and been unable to work as a result.

Is she due to appear for VP's defence?

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub · 08/02/2013 11:17

Anyone else still fuming at the phrasing of "she manages to earn more than me"?

cumfy · 08/02/2013 12:30

Pan I'm not sure whether we're talking at cross-purposes.

It is VP who has admitted the actus reus of perverting the course of justice (the prosecution haven't really done anything).
The only live issue, is the the one of coercion.

That is what this trial is about and the jury should hear both sides.

One of the real practical problems is that VP is free to say almost anything she likes re conversations with CH as she knows he has not given evidence that the jury can weigh up.

Basically I'm fairly sure a deal has been cut so neither CH or the children give evidence.

That's not justice.

Xenia · 08/02/2013 12:46

Not sure about CB who was a neighbourh apparently to whom NP mentioned the taking of points at the time it happens.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/constance-briscoe-judge-who-wrote-misery-memoir-suspended-after-arrest-8203907.html
Not been much in the press about it probably for legal reasons. I suppose when CH was saying he was not driving and his wife rightly took the points CB would be being said to be liar. Now that CH has said he did lie presumably that would pass but I suppose it might be about something else.

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub · 08/02/2013 12:49

But cumfy, would it actually be possible for him to give evidence as he hasn't yet been sentenced and the things he said in VP's trial could influence his own sentencing..?

cumfy · 08/02/2013 13:01

Doctrine, I think that's precisely why he should be giving evidence: to ensure his sentencing on the basis that he did not coerce.

If CH himself supports the coercion hypothesis, the CPS really shouldn't be proceeding.

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub · 08/02/2013 13:42

Even if CH admitted he coerced, the CPS might still proceed so a court could test if it met the legal definition for coercion.

BerylStreep · 08/02/2013 14:00

Xenia, that judgement in relation to Trimingham's action is very interesting reading.

What a shambles of lives. Poor kids.

EmmelineGoulden · 08/02/2013 14:11

cumfy 'Basically I'm fairly sure a deal has been cut so neither CH or the children give evidence.'

I don't understand this. How would she be cutting a deal when she's pleading not guilty?

cumfy · 08/02/2013 14:40

Well possibly, because she knows she can now plead not guilty precisely because the deal has been struck ?

EmmelineGoulden · 08/02/2013 14:50

Oh, you mean CH struck the deal when pleading guilty?

Xenia · 08/02/2013 14:50

Yes, Beryl, very interesting. It seems to be saying if you Trmingham have sold stories for cash about people's private lives you can hardly have a superinjunction to cover up your own inflidelity in your own civil partnership and your being the person with whom Huhn committed adultery. Actually can bisexuals be unfaithful to a civil partner? I am not sure of the technical definition.

Anyway it's a classic typical story - married man (or woman ) strays, hopes to keep it hidden from wife, gets round out. In general in politics if you can say I fell in love, this new woman is the over of my life and we will m arry you seem to be able to get over public scandal better than if it were a bit on the side which might be why he rushed to announce to the press he was going to leave his wife for his lover. The way he did it was not at all kind in relation to his wife and why he thought he could hide it is amazing. Silly man.

I would have thought the children would be more than happy to give evidence. They will know more than anyone on the planet whether Huhne was a bully to his wife at home. They are adult and clever/Oxbridge, articulate and probably very keen to give evidence. The last thing they probably want is to be "spared" showing what their father is really like. They would like to shout it from the rooftops.

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub · 08/02/2013 15:09

Of course a bisexual in a civil partnership, or in any kind of relationship, can be unfaithful. Doesn't seem overly relevant though.

cumfy · 08/02/2013 15:14

So are you thinking the children will give evidence Xenia ?

Or just that you will be rather suspicious if they don't ?

BerylStreep · 08/02/2013 15:29

Shakespeare would have had a field day.

Daddelion · 08/02/2013 15:32

It is a Greek tragedy.

Ponders · 08/02/2013 16:01

one of them has changed their surname I think? & another refuses to have anything to do with him. so they are very very angry with him.

but should they be expected to testify?

Ponders · 08/02/2013 16:11

\link{http://the--anti--chris.blogspot.co.uk/'the anti-Chris!' blog}

'A resistance movement against Chris Huhne - the politician who rose without trace. We're dedicated to uncovering the hidden traces...'

made me blink a bit - such virulent loathing Shock

& from someone who actually knows him, by the tone

Daddelion · 08/02/2013 16:21

The blogger doesn't sound like a typical lib-dem.

I'll look forward to reading the blog after the next election to see if 'Fortunately the right man prevailed and we now enter the sunlit uplands under Nick' is still the tone.

BerylStreep · 08/02/2013 16:22

The blog is pretty distasteful.

Ponders · 08/02/2013 16:44

it's very distasteful, Beryl (sorry, maybe should have put a warning in...)

but it's been going (intermittently) since 2007 - I didn't realise he had been so disliked for so long

BerylStreep · 08/02/2013 17:25

pass the smelling salts Grin

PacificDogwood · 08/02/2013 20:52

Is it not the case that a person in a civil partnership cannot file for divorce on the grounds of infidelity? This is according to a source on MN (must be true then Grin), cited in evidence that true equality has not been achieved with the recent legislation. If that is true, it seems bizarre to me, but could be filed under 'the law is an ass' I suppose.

Swipe left for the next trending thread