Vicky Price

I was rather miffed by Chris Huhne's claim that he had "exchanged" licence points with his 'then' wife. The word implies that she got something in return doesn't it? In the interview before sentencing, he expressed contrition for what he had done but I definitely got the sense of a man who likes the sound of his own voice and that his contrition was not genuine.

I just can't help feeling sorry for VP - hell hath no fury etc....and boy, was she scorned. "I love you - here's my sperm to prove it - child? children?get rid of them! speeding points? you take them or my career will be ruined! No? Ok I'll go and find someone else then". Who amongst us would not want a bit of revenge?

"When you seek revenge, dig two graves." Chinese, I think.

I don't understand why they both got the same sentence. Presuming they both pleaded guilty to the actual offence, what was the point in the longish trial spent examining ing the circumstances and the background. Did the judge really feel it was six of one and a half-dozen of the other? No thought at all to who actually did the speeding? And who did the persuading?

Seems a lazy, and dismissive way of sentencing.

I agree - I thought he'd get a longer sentence. OK so they both perverted the course of justice, but he lied and lied about it for months, declaring his innocence and implying she'd made it all up.

Yep! Lazy judge I reckon.

I agree with those who say they sentencing was unfair. If it had not been for Chris Huhne's speeding in the first place then the entire thing would not have happened.

Also I wonder does anyone know if he has had his licence taken from him?

He pleaded guilty so automatically gets a bit knocked off his sentence – in his case only a small bit because he pleaded guilty pretty late in the day. She didn't plead guilty and there were two trials because the jury couldn't agree at the first one. The speeding points themselves are totally irrelevant; this was all about perverting the course of justice.

Yes I understand that he pleaded guilty (eventually). But I still cannot understand what "she" was guilty of ? Am I right in thinking she was guilty of taking his penalty points and that is all?

I don't think the speeding points should be irrelevant. They should be put back to where they should have been all along on his licence and he should have a driving ban enforced when he get out.

She was guilty of perverting the course of justice too, gillybob - she kept quiet about taking his points for all those years.

His licence would have been taken from him in court, if he hadn't sent it in beforehand, as soon as he was convicted, but if those points were applied retrospectively, the other 9 points would be long gone. The 3 points that should have been applied will be put on his otherwise (now) clean licence and the driving ban will be applied from the date of conviction, if it was automatic (from sentence, if not).

Well yes I know that Ana but her whole defence was that he coerced her into doing it. Not sure she should have been found guilty if I am honest.
Any other woman who has taken the blame for anything on behalf of her husband/partner is hardly going to ever come forward now are they?

Aaaah but whenim64 surely this has only just come to light and he therefore held onto his licence for however long (?????) when he should have had a ban enforced. Should he not still have the ban enforced when he comes out of prison?

...........and while we are at it can we not have him in the stocks so we can all throw tomatoes at him and tie him to the lamp post outside parliament with a note around his neck saying I am a bad man and ........

Couldn't' care less about the "demeaning women" bit.

Just seems strange that both cases were judged to require exactly the same length of time in prison. Would be interesting to know how much thought went into it at the end, on the judge's part.

She claimed marital coercion but it was not accepted as a defence and she was found guilty of perverting the course of justice, so that defence had no relevance when it came to sentencing.

It seems unlikely that the judge just cavalierly decided "Let's give both the buggers the same sentence".

I think it seems very likely!

gillybob his ban will be for about a year and he'll be out in a few weeks, so he'll still be unable to drive for quite a long time.

It's unlikely they'll impose a very long ban given that he doesn't appear to have accrued any more points in the intervening years.

Perhaps he didn't want people accusing him of being biased in favour of one over the other....

I think it is significant that their five children have all sided with her. I thought the judge was a misogynist, given his reported comments about her. He obviously did not understand how a controlling and dominant alpha male can grind down his partner and that is what I think happened in this case. I would have found her not guilty.

I really do not see how a woman who had such a brilliant career in the highest levels of government and business is likely to have been afraid of any alpha male.
Only three of the children are theirs, apart from those very sad texts we don't know what the other children (they are all adults) thought. We also have only one side of the circumstances of the marriage break up. I really think we should not judge unless we know the whole story and I very much hope for all their sakes that it now stays private.
I imagine they got the same sentence because they committed the same crime; attempting to pervert the course of justice by giving a false statement about who had been driving. He lost his licence soon afterwards because of another driving offence, but I thought the judge said that he was not considering that as part of the case.
It all seems clear to me and in addition when has done a good job of explaining it from her considerable experience. Is there anything else to be said?

I think it probably doesn't matter if he loses his licence, he can easily afford to pay someone to drive him!

And that would have applied when the original offence was committed, as well!

mamie have you ever been bullied, hit or intimidated by a man?

Yes at work (but not hit).
Do you have evidence that that was the case?

The truth is that none of us knows what happened. The jury did not believe the defence of marital coercion and from everything I have read I find it hard to believe too, but I wasn't there and I don't know. There was an interesting article today saying broadly that we are so fed up with our politicians that we seize on this sort of event to attack them, because we don't have any other way of expressing our displeasure. I think there is probably a lot of truth in that.
For what it's worth being bullied at work made me a lot tougher. I can't speak for anyone else.

No mamie but it is hard to understand I think, if you have not had an abusive partner. And he might have been. Bullying at home and in work are both horrible and damage a person's self esteem while it lasts, and for a while afterwards. I can imagine that bit easily.
It's the blurting I feel more mystified about. After I left my abusive first H i decided that I would not say anything to anyone that would harm his career and therefore indirectly harm the children. But we are all different and ultimately I was the one who left, rather than being dumped.