Vicky Pryce is guilty

[UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think that guardian journalist has read this thread. The fortinbras analogy was made here yesterday.

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.

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 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 , 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 .

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

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.

Yeah, Vicky Pryce is definitely my role model.

Listen to this.

A recent survey suggests that women who say they would never, ever ever take their husband's points for him also refuse to swallow.

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.

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.

Don't hold back, Frumpet, tell it like it is.

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?

Erm...so she could maintain her entitled and privileged lifestyle in the higher echelons of society?

"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?

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.

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.

I imagine it would make more sense as a defence where the marriage vows require a wife to 'obey'.