Vicky Pryce is guilty

[UnexpectedItemInShaggingArea]

She only said that to a reporter, not to the police. If she had said it to the police, it would have been a crime. As she said to a reporter, it is only a lie.

I would like to know how VP and CH got together (because I am a nosy cow).

Did they have an affair then VP left her first DH, was she divorced and CH met and married her, did VP's first DH have an affair which resulted in divorce.

Just nosy cos it would effect her feelings towards CH's affair and maybe make her more determined for revenge.

But duchesse the fact that he was worse than her doesn't make her any the less guilty of the crime she is accused of committing. She hasn't 'only' signed a piece of paper. She signed it knowing she was perverting the course of justice and that what she was doing was illegal. He may have signed the form to say that everything on it was truthful but then so did she. It wasn't any different. She wasn't being tried for speeding - that is kind of irrelevant. She was tried for lying and was rightfully found guilty.

Hopefully the pair of them will now disappear into obscurity where they belong.

There is now of course Polyy Toynbee and a parade of other idiotic lefties on the radio going on about how "terribly sad" it all is. personally I don't think it's sad when disgusting liars get outed as such. It's justice working as it should, which, when it brings down Jeffrey Archer and other people of whom Polly disapproves, she thinks is a jolly good thing.
I love the Leftie establishment, I really do. No group of people are unintentionally so amusing.

She took the points because she was a s ambitious for her husband as he was for himself and did not want his driving record to impact on his career. To suggest she was coerced is not credible. The alleged involvement of Constance Briscoe, someone who should adhere to the highest standards of behaviour is just awful.

To the poster who thinks it a fuss about nothing - there is far too much fuss about the affairs, revenge etc and, as far as I can see, far too little about the digraceful and illegal conduct of these horrible people.

I think it is the right verdict.

She was a tough, independent, successful business woman. There is no way she was 'coerced' into doing it. Pressured, maybe, but if she had really felt it was wrong she still would have said No.

And what slipshod said - ambitious to be the wife of a successful MP.

And by the way Karlos I'm proud to consider myself what you'd call a 'Leftie' you should be wary of making generalisations.

Of course she is guilty as sin. The whole point is she didn't do the right thing. She didn't go to the police, she approached two newspapers. With the help of some extremely high-powered friends.

He has committed a worse crime than her, that doesn't mean she's innocent.

I'm not saying she's not guilty. It's just that everyone is cutting Mr some slack since he hasn't been in the media so much since his 11th admission of guilt. People are quite conveniently forgetting that the reason he didn't have a trial, and therefore didn't get splashed all over the papers for the last 2 months, is because he is actually GUILTY of all the crimes I listed below.

I would be horrified if he were granted a reduced sentence because of his admission of guilt and that despite having committed more crimes than her they both ended up with the same sentence. Except she'd also have had a trial by media.

*11th hour

Not one t'mend other!

no sympathy at all, why on earth would anyone have sympathy for this woman? She had no intention of doing the right thing, she went to the press not the police, not because she wanted to do the right thing but because she wanted revenge. Presumably she thought the papers would tear CH and the woman she tried to pin it on apart without ever considering that what she had actually done was a crime punishable by a jail sentence.

He is equally guilty but this isn't about him - he will hopefully serve his time accordingly but so should she.

vile woman who was prepared to stoop to any low to get away with and justify her revenge, including hurting her own children into the bargain. Women like her make me sick.

I rest my case, m'lud.

Whose cutting him any slack?! I don't see that at all. We are talking about her because she was found guilty today. His conviction is old news and we all know he is a dispicable toe rag. I don't get why you are cutting her slack? She invited the media to take part in proceedings. She didn't go to the police, she went to the papers. You reap what you sow. If she got trial by media that is because she engineered it that way. She clearly didn't think out the consequences very well though, did she?

I do have a small amount of sympathy with her, in that (if her story is true) she initially refused to take the points, and then he sent off the form with her name on it, so she had to decide whether to take the points or shop him to the authorities. So that put her in a difficult position.

Obviously I don't have massive amounts of sympathy for her, as what she did was still a crime, and she could still have said No. And if she had then been motivated by guilt, she could have gone and confessed all to the police, instead of talking to a news reporter.

Of the two of them, I think hers is the lesser offence, so I would hope she gets a slightly shorter sentence.

I feel she is getting a lot more flak than she ought to on here because she is a woman. Where is the equivalent "Chris Huhne is a despicable toerag" thread? Has there been one?

duchesse there were plenty of posts calling Huhne a despicable toerag at the time of his guilty plea.

There was a thread on here around the time of Pryce's first trial where a number of posters were sympathetic to her. It's a shame you missed it.

And she wasn't tried by the media. She was tried by a judge and found guilty by a jury.

Yes duchesse but it is "Mumsnet" - we like Mums to be nice and thoughtful to their kids

Ok fair enough then.

I bet you anything you like they get similar length sentences though.

GOOD! I am so pleased.

Both horrible, arrogant people who think they are above the law.

I expect she will get a minor sentence- a fine or community service and he will get a token stay in clink.

Hmmm. I do believe marital coercion, but who could be keen on her trying to pin it on the other bird - Mrs Huhne did the same thing as Mr.

But she was provoked and in an impossible position. The only plus is that Mr must get longer in jug than his ex.

Neither of them likes the children much, do they.

It's good we are reminded that you can't mess with the law and what first seemed a trivial offence has been dealt with correctly.

A bit like this one where the boy didn't turn up for jury duty, I doubt anyone realised it was an inprisonable offence.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076997/Juror-Matthew-Banks-jailed-Christmas-phoning-sick-halting-trial.html

I'm sure loads of people have acted the same way in taking points for a spouse. Most people don't think that speeding is a big deal - many people speed slightly as a matter of course if they know that there is no speed camera watching them. And if they end up losing their licence for it it seems a very high price to pay.
It's a bit unrealistic to expect someone to shop her long term husband and father of her children to the police because he put her name down on a speeding form. Would you do that to your husband? And probably end your marriage because of it?

Yes, I think it would have been very different had she approached the police and reported it, and her role in it.

She still would have got her publicity and revenge, but more likely to have evaded prosecution.

I'm sure her family are in shock. I do feel sorry for her, but not what she has done.

Dromedary, I think m any people feel as you do but why? Regular speeding convictions are fairly serious offences. These people could afford a driver. Where are society's morals that we think it is ok to pick and choose which laws we obey?