'controlling, manipulative and devious' - not the man who spent £250k on lawyers trying to get the charges dismissed on spurious grounds, but the woman. Of course...

[edam]

what the judge said in the Vicky Pryce/Chris Huhne case. So depressing seeing the judge give full rein to his sexist impulses - quite possibly without even realising how prejudiced his words were. Why is Huhne merely described as 'lying' while his wife gets the full opprobrium? Huh?

Yes I thought that was bizarrely discordant as well.

Glad it's not just me, then!

So the wife who was presented with the fait accompli forcing her into the position of either lying to the court re speeding or informing the courts that her husband was a liar is the one who gets the "controlling and manipulative" tag?

Yep, I noticed that too. She managed to control and manipulate him into letting her take the points on her license.

Sorry she broke the law and knew she had. I heard all day yesterday about how intelligent this woman is and she made a decision based on the family. However I really got to dislike her attitude when she gave that little smirk on the way into court like she expect her sex to keep her out of jail. She chose to break the information to the press she has to live with the consequences.

As yes she was an example showing that no matter who you are if you help break the law you have to face the consequences. If she had of got off what message would that have sent out?

I don't particularly think she should have got off, but the vilification she got compared with him was something else.

If she had pleaded guilty (as he did at the 11th hour), then perhaps is would not have been said.

If she had been able to prove her defence, it certainly wouldn't have been said. It's not just that she took the points, it's how she chose to engage with the later judicial procedure.

I do not think she's beyond reproach because of her sex.

What Tunip said.

"However I really got to dislike her attitude when she gave that little smirk on the way into court like she expect her sex to keep her out of jail." See that is just speculation and interpretation. There is no evidence that she expected to be let off a custodial sentence because of her sex. Once she was found guilty it was pretty much a done deal that she was going to prison. She wouldn't have been unaware of that.

The issue is that he wasn't described as controlling and manipulative, despite the facts of the case actually proving otherwise. You could also argue he manipulated the justice system too. With a last minute guilty plea.

Here is an interesting article in the Spectator about the Sunday Times part in all this Sunday Times jails its source

yesterday everyone at work was saying "hell hath no fury like a woman spurned" which drives me mad. No one was saying "hell hath no shamelessness like a man in demonic pursuit of a career regardless of all costs to anyone else". It has to be about her emotional instability rather than his.

The whole case was depressing but I am not sure my view on this is entirely objective.

My ex-abusive H put points on my license when they were his. He asked, I said no, he just sent off my license anyway. Twice. 6 points. Then convinced me with the very same argument that "he was going to lose his license etc etc" to "agree" to it. I "agreed" under severe pressure. Wonder if I would get done for that? I couldn't prove what happened

That is an interesting article AbigailAdams. I cannot believe how mendacious Oakeshott is being about the whole process. The phone call where she is persuading Pryce that they can swing it is shocking. Some journalists are so vile.

Huhne's interview on C4 news yesterday was "manipulative and devious". It reminded me so much of the classic image of a "good bloke" chatting with the police after they have been called out to an episode of domestic violence at his house. Spinning them a yarn, being clubbable, marginalising the woman that he has pressured.

I do not think she's beyond reproach because of her sex.

As far as I can see, nobody is arguing that she should be. That's a classic example of twisting this type of argument (comparing a woman's treatment with a man's when they have BOTH behaved like morons) to sound as though feminists want women to be not held accountable for anything. The term for this type of misrepresentation is a straw man argument, I believe.

Well said, samandi. So depressing when you keep having to point out feminists expect men and women to be treated fairly, no more no less, and stil people can't see the unfairness in the judge's comments.

Floaty, yy, Huhne's interview was indeed 'devious and manipulative' yet none of the commentators pointed that out.

Humphrey, indeed, highly unethical of Oakeshott to tamely hand over confidential information that is arguably/to some extent legally privileged without putting up far more of a fight to protect her source. Causes more trouble for decent journalists dealing with stories of actual serious news value - whistleblowers are even more reluctant to come forward and expose real wrongdoing if they think all journalists are as cowardly as Oakeshott and the Times.

isn't Oakeshott related to Lib-Dem grandee Lord Oakeshott?

I haven't read all of what the judge said but it seems to me she put forward a defence which at least some of the jurors on the original trial were prepared to accept. The jurors on the second trial clearly did not accept her defence but she is entitled to present her defence. Huhne on the other hand only plead guilty because his attempts to exclude very damaging evidence failed. Had he succeeded in excluding his son's emails, he would have gone to trial.

For those reasons, it seems unfair to me to penalise Pryce for not pleading guilty and to reward Huhne for pleading guilty. From what I've read, it seems the judge is saying that was part of the sentencing consideration.

To be fair though, according to the BBC article: "The judge told former energy and climate change secretary Huhne he was "more culpable" for the offence."

I've read the sentencing remarks now and the judge says effectively he would give Huhne 9 months but deduct one month for the guilty plea. He gave Pryce 8 months to reflect that she was less culpable for the actual offence but no deduction as she did not plead guilty.

The judge talks of the various applications Huhne made to have the case dismissed even though he knew he was guilty and says that Huhne's "lies and your endeavour to manipulate the process of the court will not add a day to your sentence" but goes on to say "In any event you must receive a discount of 10% to reflect the fact that your late plea took a degree of courage, saved the time and expense of a trial, and may reflect the beginnings of a degree of remorse ? albeit that it is easy now to apologise for your wrongdoing."

In those circumstances it still seems unfair to me that Huhne got a discount for his guilty plea and I don't see any courage in what he did.

"I do not think she's beyond reproach because of her sex."

"she gave that little smirk on the way into court like she expect her sex to keep her out of jail"

Great examples of internalised misogyny. Firstly, no-one argued that she should be beyond reproach because of her sex and secondly, why on earth does anyone believe they know why she "smirked" (if she did)? But eager to dissociate themselves from other women in order to line up with the powerful sex, some women will seize on this sort of argument to prove to men that they're not like those other women, they're one of the lads. A bit like that sad women on the ARRSE website who desperately joined in with all the woman-hating banter in order to show the menz that she's not like those other pathetic woman, she's one of them. Much good will it do her, they can see what she really is - one of the Untermenschen and no amount of identifying with the men will get her admission into the club.

This is what patriarchy does so successfully and MN demonstrates it over and over again very usefully.

I think Vicki Pryce probably was probably manipulative, but nowhere near as manipulative as her ex husband. There are literally thousands of women in this country who find themselves in exactly the same position vis a vis speeding points and are coerced into accepting them because they are thinking of the long term ramifications of their decision if they don't - the threat to the relationship, the stick they are giving their partners to beat them with long term, the impact on the family finances etc. That's without being in what we would recognise as straightforwardly abusive relationships - multiply that by zillions where actual abuse is present, as it is for a quarter of all women.

Women are socialised to have those long term considerations, while men aren't. Which is why on the whole, it's men who are getting the speeding points (because they're not thinking about the long term impact on their families and relationships, are they?) and women who accept them.