Vicky Pryce is guilty

[UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea]

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.?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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..

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 .

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.

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:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/07/vicky-pryce-marital-coercion-thrown-out

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 !)

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!

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.

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.

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.

Yes perhaps arrogant rather than naive. But I really don't think she did know enough or she wouldn't have done it.

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.

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.

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.

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?