Vicky Pryce is guilty

[UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea]

Did anyone else hear her counsel on the Today programme this morning?

I missed it Duchesse, I just walked in the room at the very end, what did he say?

I was just thinking how he will get on in prison, Xenia.

He seems so arrogant and devious I half think he will fit in very well, but also wonder if the prisoners will dislike him very much ( especially as he's part of the govt)

Does anyone know if "high profile" prisoners like him get special treatment to avoid "incidents"?

He couldn't say too much that was specific because they're still waiting for the courts transcripts with a view to formulating an appeal. He did mention the non-physical aspects of DV, and mentioned the word sexism several times.

I think it was at about 8:15 if anyone wanted to listen again.

I got back from the school run just after it was due to be on.
They may well want to appeal for reputational reasons. It may be worth trying an appeal although she might well be out and home before it's heard. I suspect though that marital coercion is not that easy to prove and was always a big of a punt.

Huhne has been moved to an area for sex offenders I think as he was being chased for money to much by other prisoners.
I understand it is likely that most of Huhne's and VP's sentences - the 4 months they will serve are likely to be in an open prison so I would imagine they will be moved very soon.

They could be out on a curfew order in two months.

What a waste of time, money and happiness for three points.

She hasn't decided yet.

Surely would be a terrible waste of yet more money? She probably feels there's been an injustice but surely she can't go through another trial trying to prove that he coerced her into taking the points and that was the only defence she had. Also not much point trying to appeal the disparity in sentences (even though that was unjust) if she will be out in a matter of months.

Hopefully she will just do the time and get on with her life. Sad, reading the link some way above re CT briefing against VP, that she did seem to be getting on with her life immediately after the divorce and it was after the Conference that bitterness started to get the better of her.

I am wondering if this is the middle rather than the end.

They will both be released on exactly the same date and I fully expect battle to recommence forthwith.

Interviews, appearances, "Oh what a liberating and thought provoking experience prison has been".

On it will go.

She couldn't appeal the facts the jury have found. I suppose she could appeal things like if the judge wrongly directed the jury or if the sentence was out of line with other sentences.It would probably not be worth her appealing as I don't think there would be much chance of success.

They both lied under oath, they were both found guilty so why shouldn't they both get the same sentence?

Shouldn't the points he avoided ten years ago also be added now to his licence?

Edmonton, they didn't lie on oath - they lied on a form.

she did seem to be getting on with her life immediately after the divorce and it was after the Conference that bitterness started to get the better of her.

The 'bitterness' didn't start to get the better of her after the conference as if in a vacuum. Scurrilous statements were made about her by OW with the backing of CH at that point. Reacting to that is not bitterness.

"Reacting to that is not bitterness"

Again Math you are right!

Reacting and standing up for oneself in a pugnacious way is normal and healthy. Classyfying it as bitterness just devalues her as a person unnecessarily.

The pressure for women to be NICE all the time, even in the most difficult circumstances, knows no bounds.

so passing the buck is 'normal and healthy'?

she didn't 'pass the buck' - she reported what CH had said to her - that on a previous occasion someone else took his points. He might have lied to her, he might have been mistaken about who it was (wouldn't surprise me) but she was saying this was not the first time he'd done this.

He sounds like a real catch

so, if what she says is correct, she was prepared to implicate an innocent person without checking the facts

They did not lie under oath. They filled in the form incorrectly, she because of pressure from him which did not amount to the very hard to prove marital coercion. No one has said they lied under oath.

Nor did she pass the buck. When she was chatting to journalists she thought as Huhne had past form - letting his staff take points - that might be what would be assumed had happened here but VP did not seek to blame anyone else.

Apparently what was reported about Huhne life in prison in the press recently was wrong - his girl friend has clarified things.

'The 'bitterness' didn't start to get the better of her after the conference as if in a vacuum'

I know, that was the point I was making which was why I mentioned the link re CT briefing against VP at the conference - ie that was where the bitterness really took over.

All the same, however understandable, reacting with bitterness is bitterness.

'Reacting and standing up for oneself in a pugnacious way is normal and healthy'

Not of itself - depends on the reaction doesn't it? Reacting by asserting that she was attending conference on her own terms, to support the party and Cable was normal and healthy. Reacting by becoming overwhelmed by anger and vengeful feelings certainly not.

No one has said they lied under oath.

Well the judge has suggested that VP has, both in his remarks and sentencing of both of them.

He said that the jury had seen through her claims of coercion and 8 months would be a whopping sentence for someone who had not lied about pressure amounting, on their account, to coercion.

CH was sentenced on the basis he did not coerce and VP likewise.
Hence, the equal sentences.

It's only bitterness because she is a woman. A man's reaction would be called something else.

There has been plenty of sexist language used with respect to VP but you can hardly include 'bitterness' - a word frequently applied to men as well as women.

VP's behaviour is a perfect demonstration of bitterness - allowing feelings of sadness and anger to taint everything good in her life. Not enough to have a brilliant career, loving family, privileged lifestyle, she had to have revenge as well.

It's rarely used to describe men's behaviour or speech.

It goes hand in hand with the 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned' cliche, when actually it is far more likely that a man will have a reaction of very dangerous fury to being scorned - hence stalking, attacks on women who are trying to leave domestic abuse situations, etc. Leaving safely is one of the elements of leaving that WA focuses on because of the well known danger to women when leaving.

yellowbrick, do you not think it's wrong that women are criticised for daring to get angry when men shit on them from a great height? We are expected to shut up and put up with it. Double standard - men are allowed to get angry, even when it's unreasonable, but women are expected to behave nicely even when there's every reason to get angry.

I have virtually never heard men called bitter. It is usually used in a sexist context.
Women are not supposed to get angry yet in reality women and men share a lot more in terms of emotions than people suggest in the press.
Men of course are much more into revenge than women and plenty end up killing their children to spite their wife yet that adjective bitter is rarely applied to them.

I don't think VP thought hard enough about how she might be prosecuted or perhaps she is pleased, who knows? Her husband's career is over and hers is probably not. He has been called to account for his adultery and his lies.

I don't agree the judge said VP lied in court. Martial coercion is hard to make out but that does not mean her husband did not complete the form and say sign here or my career is over.

Anyway it's a lesson to everyone not to get involved with the press.