Vicky Pryce is guilty

[UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea]

'Irrational, yes - but I don't think someone truly devious and manipulative would have ended up in such a mess.'

Yes they would if they were stupid or so eaten up by the desire for revenge that common sense and clear thinking went out the window.

'The judge said VP had a:

"controlling, manipulative and devious side,"

How is that misogynistic? It appears to be true.'

Does that have relevance, I don't know? Also could it be said of Huhne too?

no she reported what she SAID that CH had told her. fwiw I think she was so arrogant that she thought she was above prosecution. some posters forget she is a very powerful woman.

Huhne was manipulative too, yes, but in the context of the trial and how it it played out in the papers and in court, he wasn't directly manipulative. I have no doubt he was in other ways but the judge was talking specifically about the case and not generally when he called VP manipulative.

I have been reading the full exchange of e-mails between VP & Oakeshott. (so far on page 17 of 59 - irritated that no-one seems to be able to spell licence - they are all talking about licenses).

In the e-mails, she appears to be saying that yes, she took the points, but that the aide had also taken points previously. She says in the e-mails that the aide had a provisional licence, but that apparently points can go on a provisional licence.

It doesn't really make sense that she was trying to implicate someone else whilst trying to protect herself - she seems to be saying that Huhne has passed on points on 2 occasions - once to her, once to the aide.

She sez. She sez.

If the Mail on Sunday found that Jo White had points on her licence and found someone to pinpoint the relevant time and place appearing to implicate Huhne (easy enough), then that would have been of relevant public interest, and they would have gone ahead with it.

This was a LibDem Coalition minister and the MoS is a Conservative newspaper.

They would definitely have been saying something yesterday when both Huhne and Pryce had been convicted and it was safe.

Pryce was either confused or making it up.

Indeed Beryl, the way I read it, she had no problem with Jo White's name getting out, agreeing with Oakeshott's plan to try to get her husband on the case to entrap her. I find that pretty damn manipulative and devious, have your name protected at all costs while throwing someone else to the wolves.

I am amazed at the amount of people on here defending VP, I am thinking they can't have read the emails...

To me, it is just as dangerous to have a self-entitled law breaker in a position of power behind the scenes (i.e VP in her top Whitehall and commercial roles) as it is to have one as an MP.

There's a brilliant Spectator blog by Nick Cohen about Oakeshott's shoddy treatment of Pryce. As a former journalist, I can't help agree that you would have to be very foolish to speak to a journalist on the basis of this saga, no matter how respectable the paper, and completely barking to speak to Oakeshott.

'lottie drink driving is an absolute offence. If the person you know was found to be over the alcohol limit while driving he'd have been banned for a minimum of 12 months. No argument.

At seven times over the limit he'd have been looking at a prison sentence and a longer ban. '

He was banned, yes the ban is automatic though isn't it? No prison sentence though, I know that for sure.

There's a brilliant Spectator blog by Nick Cohen about Oakeshott's shoddy treatment of Pryce

Oh please.

I'm also a journalist who's not a fan of Oakeshott and despised her purple piece yesterday. I also hate the way News International have handed over information about its journalists to try to save the Murdochs from prosecution.

But I don't see why Oakeshott should be particularly condemned by Nick Cohen and The Spectator. It hardly has the highest editorial standards - Rod Liddle's article about the Stephen Lawrence pair is just one example of its cynical blundering. Or maybe just blundering. It led to that public schoolboys' sixth form mag being convicted of contempt of court.

And anyone who champions the contempt for sleb journalism felt by Marina Hyde should do his homework. She used to work for the News of the World and The Sun. Nothing wrong with that. Just say it. BTW I'm sure Nick Cohen knows it.

He was banned for 12 months.

Well at least the judge has decided it was a little more serious than jumping in a river (6 months).

lottie you first said he just had to pay a fine. Now you're adding that he got a ban.

I was a court reporter. If he was seven times over the limit I'd be flabbergasted if the ban wasn't more than 12 months and he wasn't looking at a prison sentence, albeit suspended, in anything but the most exceptional circumstances.

Sentencing guidelines are there to help judges and magistrates but also to help us have confidence in what the courts do.

Like you, I don't agree with people being made an example of. It should be according to guidelines and precedent.

It really annoys me when people talk about secret handshakes and conspiracies. It doesn't work like that.

such a role model
excellent cv so far reads - left husband no.1 to link up with Politico lover
prevent Huhne from becoming MEPas does not want him away from home
Prevent Huhne from taking Business Secretary role as conflict of interest with her role
Having played the part of the cuckolding wife herself attack husband's lover with defamatory comments
Seek to use press portrayed as a destroyed housewife whilst thrusting own children into public eye
Use an archaic legal defence thereby betraying every abused woman in this country
Resigning her post with FTI is the first morally correct thing she has acheived in an age - enjoy the porridge

catkicker, that is harsh and kicking someone when they are down

such a role model - she is in lots of ways, notwithstanding this.

excellent cv so far reads - left husband no.1 to link up with Politico lover = no that's not true. She did not meet Huhne until 12 mnoths atfter her first marriage had ended.

prevent Huhne from becoming MEPas does not want him away from home - se did not prevent him. He forced that on the family to its detriment - not a good decision. Left her having to do too much. It was not a good decision.

Prevent Huhne from taking Business Secretary role as conflict of interest with her role - she was the one making career sacrifice not Huhne.

Having played the part of the cuckolding wife herself attack husband's lover with defamatory comments - she never did that. She met Huhne at least a year after her marriage broke down.

Seek to use press portrayed as a destroyed housewife whilst thrusting own children into public eye - also not true. VP has never said she was a housewife and the children know exactly what their father did and knowing exactly where the blame lies one has even changed their surname so it is not Huhne.

Use an archaic legal defence thereby betraying every abused woman in this country - not at all. She had no idea going to journalists would end up with her in court - her lawyers advised on the defence and it nearly was made out in the first trial.

Resigning her post with FTI is the first morally correct thing she has acheived in an age - enjoy the porridge -not at all and one hopes that when she gets out she can continue her career.

Next time avoid men who are away a lot, Pick feminist men who help out mroe at home and men who don't commit adultery. Avoid men like Huhne.

If anything I thought they both deserved longer sentences. And as for feeling sorry for Vicky Pryce. I don't. Nothing would have come to light if she hadn't set out to deliberately destroy his career. So she has brought all this on herself. Not saying he is any better. he isn't. Both dreadful people. I think they should have got five years each.

Pick feminist men who help out mroe at home and men who don't commit adultery

Xenia, when you set up your dating agency, I'm joining it.

You think they should have got five years ? The same sentence as a rapist can get? More than someone who has defrauded people of their savings? Really?

They were undoubtedly dishonest but, tbh, their crime and their actions since have hurt no one but themselves. I'm with anyone who says sending either of them to prison is a complete waste of time and money - eight months community service would have been a lot more appropriate.

Why do you think The Times handed over all the emails rather than bothering to go to the appeal court to appeal against the court order?

I can't see why either of them need to be jailed. Prisons are overcrowded and i can't see why these two need to be locked up - they are not a risk to the general public. I imagine its a first offence for both - so its an unreasonably harsh punishment which seems to be because they are high profile and to serve as a warning to others.

I think it's because contempt of court os such a serious offence. Yes in this case it was over a speeding fine....but the offence of contempt is something which has the potential to undermine the whole justice system so generally attracts a heavier sentence than people may initially realise.

But it is so much more than contempt of court. From her total and utter wickedness setting out to destroy a man totally because she was left by him for another woman. And on his part lying for nearly a year to the police before telling the truth. And the prosecution has cost over £100,000 of public money. Money that could be better spent than on those two liars.

Did anyone see the slimebag CH in his channel 4 interview blaming VP? 'yy I lied and lied again but she caused the family so much harm, I don't think she thought it through'.

He's managed to make her look like an idiot, entirely responsible for the mess (he had nothing to do with it, just standing by), as well as ignoring the 'harm to the family' of his running off with his BOS and treating his wife of decades like a piece of shit.