Vicky Pryce is guilty

[UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea]

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

The courts are going after revenge now

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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'