Vicky Pryce is guilty

[UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea]

Tiggy I think a custodial sentance is probably too harsh but thats the law.

How she conducted her defense does inform how she is sentenced but anyone who read the emails between her and the times couldnt but see that she was very controlling and manipulative so I am not sure the judge is being sexist

Well they have eight months to reflect on that - well in between shitting in a bucket and being passed round the cell block like a peace pipe.

sorry to keep on referring to this, but do the posters who think her ill-done-to feel comfortable that her initial reaction was to put an (innocent) woman in the position she's in now. not much sisterly solidarity there, was there?

higgle - your point about about changing the name of the driver was something I said further down thread only you said it much better. To my shame, having been caught for speeding myself a few years ago, driving DH's car on holiday, there is time to do just that in the process and I am sure that people make mistakes all the time. I only know I was driving on that specific day and at that time because of where we were going. On other days that week I wouldn't have had a clue who did what driving when and it was perfectly possible that we could have had to change our minds. Once that form went back with VP named as the driver, she could have queried it with the authorities. She didn't have to accept the points even then.

On another point, I disagree she had nothing to gain by taking the points. She didn't have to drive CH around as has already been said but more subtle than that she didn't want to be married so somebody who had failed. They were a high flying 'golden couple'. I am sure they got a kick out of them both being successful and therefore together being a successful couple. If he lost his licence and risked not getting elected, that would have tarnished their joint image. That is no way belittles her own achievements, she was a success in her own right, but nobody wants to be married to a failure.

Has VP issue a statement showing any remorse or apologised for her part in this? CH has although we can draw our own conclusions about how genuine that remorse is, but I wondered if she has done the same yet?

carlajean Did she actually try to fit someone up? That sounds completely loopy to me.

yes, Jo White, a constituency worker with CH. there are links further back in the thread.

I can't work out how Pryce thought that would work.

don't forget Constance Briscoe, a judge, was also involved in the approach to the Mail. I just think they thought they were too important to be rumbled. that's why I feel when posters seem to view her as a victim.

springyhop Tue 12-Mar-13 12:23:10
Women in abusive relationships are not 'mindless doormats' Sky.

I apologise, that is not what I intended to infer. I meant that she is a very powerful, successful woman, with a glittering career throughout her marriage.

Vicky Pryce is the one who has said she was happily married. She also told the jury that she was "devastated" when he left her and that she was 'practically suicidal'. My understanding is that those in an abusive relationship would rather not be. She has more money than she can spend, a grown up family, an outstanding career etc. none of it dependant on sticking with him. I'm sorry, I don't see her as being abused.

When Vicky Pryce went into the dock and entered a plea of marital coercion she was asking the jury to believe she was the kind of meek and malleable woman who would submit to her husband?s every demand.

Some on here appear to have fallen for that, unlike the judge and jury...

She told Isabel Oakeshott that CH had told her that a "Jo" in his office had taken points for him. She also said that she was sure there was another person of that name in his office at the time. She did not specifically accuse JW herself.

well, wasn't it enough to say that? to an experienced journalist?

I don't view her as a victim, she was the architect of her own downfall, but by the sound of it she was quite unhinged and drinking a lot during a lot of these exchanges with Oakeshott.

I do think Trimingham's briefing against her was provocative - that's not to say VP's response was right, but it would have enraged most people in that situation.

"The court heard she met a freelance journalist who was providing a story to the newspaper, and told him Huhne forced constituency aide Jo White to take points for him.

"I did give him a name, a Jo White, which was an aide of my husband's at the time, as somebody who I had been told by my husband had taken his points."

Quote from just about every newspaper and website in the world that has covered this trial...

Even if there were 100 Jos in the office they were always going to check and find out it hadn't happened. I can't understand how Pryce thought it would work unless she thought they would just run it on her say-so.

Well, quite.

Imagine having a marriage break-up in the cruel manner of hers, in the public eye, and then having the OW doing such provocative briefings.

And then a friend who is a legal expert allegedly comes along and gives certain advice ... and a well-connected journalist seems nice ...

well, wasn't it enough to say that? to an experienced journalist?

Enquiries were made, but it was rebutted. It wasn't as though Pryce carried on insisting it was the case, she said it was something that CH had told her as part of their discussions around why he expected her to take his points - ie that he couldn't understand why she was making such a big deal about it.

Anyway - it's all superfluous detail really. I was reading this morning that they'll both be out in 2 months on leave for good conduct - assuming they don't cause any trouble!

They'll always be notorious for this but she'll still be a top economist, and he'll no doubt continue to make a fortune in property development and continue to lecture us all on saving the planet.

So the aide was supposed to have taken points for him before?

Yes, despite not having a driving licence...

true, she didn't keep on insisting, she just dropped it into a conversation with the Mail. oops.

I think I agree linerunner.

Sarahigh, while I think you have correctly summarised the reasoning behind the rejection of the coercion defence, I think in general that line of thinking is worrying because it excludes pretty much all coercion except threats of violence (and probably includes only threats of violence with provable track record of violence on the part of the coercing party) as reasonable arguments for that particular defence.

Skybore, a woman who is happily married to a man who is demonstrably a scofflaw who has also pressured her to have an abortion should be questioned closely on her definition of 'happily married'. Some women have a very low bar and will accept a lot of crap from a partner due to conditioning in childhood or culture, religious beliefs, whatever. 'Happily married' to some means a man has his clothes in the wardrobe and his toothbrush and razor in the bathroom and no hint of an OW anywhere. The relationship may have an imbalance of power, she may be ground down emotionally, he may be quite a bully, but as long as there is no hint of infidelity, she may be 'happily married'.

Vicky Pryce: Profile of woman whose quest for revenge brought her down

The last paragraph might give some solace to her fans on here...

I think it's a shame that with all their money, they didn't think to get decent legal advice about the points in the first place. Although I suppose squirming out of it might have lost him the Eastleigh nomination anyway.

Nevertheless, he would have been a shoo-in for the next nomination that came up.

And VP would have been better off if she'd had one good friend to advise her against trying to get revenge, and gone to a counsellor instead of a journalist.

The real lesson here is that dignity is always the best revenge!