# CPS to announce decision in Huhne case



## Fedayn (Feb 2, 2012)

The Crown Prosecution Service will announce on Friday whether it will press charges against Chris Huhne over claims his former wife accepted penalty points on his behalf.



> The Sunday Times recently handed over details of emails relating to the case to the police.
> Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer is expected to make the announcement himself at 1000 GMT.



Could be an interesting weekend for the Lib Dems....


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 2, 2012)

He's fucked. Hell hath no fury... perfect timing by the ex.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 2, 2012)

Will be presently suprised if they charge him.
Precedent says that he wont have to face the beak.


----------



## colacubes (Feb 2, 2012)

Just said on the radio that he'll hear at 0900 before the official announcement at 1000.  Nice of them to give him an hour to prepare his resignation letter if necessary


----------



## articul8 (Feb 2, 2012)

His ex is a nutter - if he's found guilty she's probably going down for perverting the course of justice herself


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 2, 2012)

nipsla said:


> Just said on the radio that he'll hear at 0900 before the official announcement at 1000. Nice of them to give him an hour to prepare his resignation letter if necessary


As if he'd write it himself!!!!


----------



## two sheds (Feb 2, 2012)

Get his wife to write it you reckon?


----------



## Zabo (Feb 2, 2012)

Odd. News of forthcoming news becomes news?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 2, 2012)

articul8 said:


> His ex is a nutter - if he's found guilty she's probably going down for perverting the course of justice herself


That's why she tried to row back when that became apparent.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 3, 2012)

Everyone saying he's a gonner...


----------



## articul8 (Feb 3, 2012)

Pryce too


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 3, 2012)

Yup - charges confirmed against Huhne and Pryce.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 3, 2012)

A Good start to the weekend!


----------



## happie chappie (Feb 3, 2012)

Fuck him – slippery twat.

Be interesting to see what happens to Pryce. As she played a big part in dropping him in it, it may be difficult for her to plead not guilty.

Be interesting to see what happens if she does plead guilty. It will presumably drop Huhne further in it. I wonder who will be tried first.

If at least part of her motivation is to get back at Huhne for breaking up her marriage in such a public way, she may decide to take a hit to send him down.

Also raises the prospect of her being tried on a Perverting the Course of Justice charge and being a prosecution witness in Huhne’s separate trial on the same charge.

This one will (happily) run and run


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

Huhne has resigned


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

happie chappie said:


> Fuck him – slippery twat.
> 
> Be interesting to see what happens to Pryce. As she played a big part in dropping him in it, it may be difficult for her to plead not guilty.
> 
> ...


she could always try to turn queen's evidence


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

LOL. They already have her grassing up statement (of him), in which she incriminated herself. tbh, she probably thinks it's an acceptable price to pay, as long as he loses his job.


----------



## JHE (Feb 3, 2012)

happie chappie said:


> Fuck him – slippery twat.
> 
> Be interesting to see what happens to Pryce. As she played a big part in dropping him in it, it may be difficult for her to plead not guilty.
> 
> ...


 
It's a measure of her anger, I suppose, that she has been willing to be prosecuted just to get the ex.

Unless he's acquitted, his ministerial career is over.  In her case, it's different.  There are lots of jobs you are not allowed to do if you are convicted of a crime of dishonesty (including many very ordinary jobs in education and social care, for example), but I expect you are allowed to carry on if you are a top economist.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

Is he giving her a lift to court?


----------



## JHE (Feb 3, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> Is he giving her a lift to court?


 
Only if she agrees to pretend she was driving


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Huhne's just made 17 grand by resigning.


----------



## happie chappie (Feb 3, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> she could always try to turn queen's evidence


 
It seems they are being tried together. I assume if she enters a guilty plea, her trial will end and his will continue (assuming he pleads not guilty). Is that right?


----------



## happie chappie (Feb 3, 2012)

On a separate, but related matter, it’s good to see that there is still a modicum of judicial independence.

In many countries, charges would never have been considered in such circumstances, let alone brought.

Well done to the CPS on this one.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Huhne's just made 17 grand by resigning.


 
Had a bet on, did he?


----------



## agricola (Feb 3, 2012)

One of Huhne's chums has just compared him to Lord Carrington and Berlusconi, and that we should be very proud that a cabinet minister sees fit to resign because he has been charged with a criminal offence.


----------



## JHE (Feb 3, 2012)

agricola said:


> One of Huhne's chums has just compared him to Lord Carrington and Berlusconi, and that we should be very proud that a cabinet minister sees fit to resign because he has been charged with a criminal offence.


 
Yeah, I'm feeling dead patriotic about it all.

What I don't understand is why this Lib Dem dollop thought it was worth getting his wife to take the points.  A driving offence would not have done him very much harm and the whole thing would have been forgotten by now.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Feb 3, 2012)

JHE said:


> Yeah, I'm feeling dead patriotic about it all.
> 
> What I don't understand is why this Lib Dem dollop thought it was worth getting his wife to take the points. A driving offence would not have done him very much harm and the whole thing would have been forgotten by now.


 
He already had points on his licence, so he would have lost his licence if he'd taken those points as well.


----------



## JHE (Feb 3, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> He already had points on his licence, so he would have lost his licence if he'd taken those points as well.


 
He was an MEP at the time, I believe.  He could have got taxis everywhere he went and plonked it all on expenses.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Feb 3, 2012)

Coulda woulda shoulda.


----------



## agricola (Feb 3, 2012)

JHE said:


> He was an MEP at the time, I believe. He could have got taxis everywhere he went and plonked it all on expenses.


 
Being disqualified from driving is something that most people try to avoid, he probably thought it would never get out.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

agricola said:
			
		

> Being disqualified from driving is something that most people try to avoid, he probably thought it would never get out.



... And is a habitual liar. Nothing worse than someone like that with a bit of power and pomposity.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 3, 2012)

2 things.

1) A phrase keeps winging it's way into my brain about "innocent till proven guilty". 

2) Much as it is important to hold hypocritical scumbags to account and kick them out, this only reminds me of the amount of possible war criminals in this country who never got prosecuted. What is all that about?


----------



## past caring (Feb 3, 2012)

They didn't put Blair on trail for Iraq either. 

You fucking twonk.


----------



## past caring (Feb 3, 2012)

Or maybe you _were_ referring to Blair.

Even bigger twonk.


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 3, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> 1) A phrase keeps winging it's way into my brain about "innocent till proven guilty".


 
I hope he's _not_ proven guilty.  Still nice to see a Coalition cunt get his comeuppance, though.


----------



## gosub (Feb 3, 2012)

agricola said:


> One of Huhne's chums has just compared him to Lord Carrington and Berlusconi, and that we should be very proud that a cabinet minister sees fit to resign because he has been charged with a criminal offence.


 Carrington is in a league above him, and shows how shoddy he is when he has to look to Italian politics to find a benifical comparison. 

Even the promises of shoddy time share salesman are made within a regulated environment. Our politician's can promise the moon, bound only by our faith in there word, damn right he should step down as minister with a perverting justice case hanging over him, its a serious charge that CPS wouldn't be persueing without a firm case, he should be suspended as MP as well


----------



## happie chappie (Feb 3, 2012)

[quote="taffboy gwyrdd, post: 10890324, member: 20661]A phrase keeps winging it's way into my brain about "innocent till proven guilty"[/quote]

Yes - but there are some people that I _hope_ are guilty, and others I hope aren't. Huhne falls firmly in the former category.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 3, 2012)

agricola said:


> One of Huhne's chums has just compared him to Lord Carrington and Berlusconi, and that we should be very proud that a cabinet minister sees fit to resign because he has been charged with a criminal offence.


 
While the more rational among us reflect on the fact that any politician capable of thinking politically would have had more _nous_ than to rile his wife up in the first place.


----------



## gosub (Feb 3, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> 2 things.
> 
> 1) A phrase keeps winging it's way into my brain about "innocent till proven guilty".
> 
> 2) Much as it is important to hold hypocritical scumbags to account and kick them out, this only reminds me of the amount of possible war criminals in this country who never got prosecuted. What is all that about?


 
1) Public Office different rules apply, to protect thereputation of the office.

2)A certain amount of protection is owed to the 30,000 troops that went to Iraq "under orders"- which is not an admissable defense. To do that the system has to cover those who should face charges


----------



## agricola (Feb 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> While the more rational among us reflect on the fact that any politician capable of thinking politically would have had more _nous_ than to rile his wife up in the first place.


 
Huhne always seems to be very in love with himself though, even more than most politicians.  Once he had dumped Pryce he probably assumed that she, and her penalty points, would just vanish into thin air and he could continue his march to the top.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Huhne's just made 17 grand by resigning.


will cost him more than that in legal fees


----------



## agricola (Feb 3, 2012)

articul8 said:


> will cost him more than that in legal fees


 
One imagines there will be some kind of legal aid scam along shortly - didnt the expenses cheats get their fees paid?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 3, 2012)

The Tory right are loving this (guido fawkes has been creaming his pants for weeks at the prospect).


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

articul8 said:


> will cost him more than that in legal fees


Still 17 grand he didn't have this morning, 17 grand off a potential debt.


----------



## gosub (Feb 3, 2012)

articul8 said:


> The Tory right are loving this (guido fawkes has been creaming his pants for weeks at the prospect).


 TBF Guido was the frist to raise the issue, so will see it as a scalp


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

gosub said:


> TBF Guido was the frist to raise the issue, so will see it as a scalp


He wasn't - Pryce was in/to the sunday times.


----------



## JHE (Feb 3, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> A phrase keeps winging it's [sic] way into my brain about "innocent till proven guilty".


 
It's going to be interesting to find out what his version is.  I suppose it is that his bitter twisted ex-wife has made it all up and is lying through her teeth, but we'll see.

It is much more likely, however, that his bitter twisted ex-wife has not made it all up, but had a quick rummage through her memory for a damaging _truth_ from their many years of marriage.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 3, 2012)

past caring said:


> Or maybe you _were_ referring to Blair.
> 
> Even bigger twonk.


 
Blair chiefly, but he didn't operate in a vacuum.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> 2 things.
> 
> 1) A phrase keeps winging it's way into my brain about "innocent till proven guilty".
> 
> 2) Much as it is important to hold hypocritical scumbags to account and kick them out, this only reminds me of the amount of possible war criminals in this country who never got prosecuted. What is all that about?


_No lib-dems are innocent._

That's your approach to the labour party member 'war-criminals' in a nutshell - all guilty - why bend over backwards to extend different standards to a fucking lib-dem?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 3, 2012)

gosub said:


> 1) Public Office different rules apply, to protect thereputation of the office.
> 
> 2)A certain amount of protection is owed to the 30,000 troops that went to Iraq "under orders"- which is not an admissable defense. To do that the system has to cover those who should face charges


 
I wasn't aware of (1). Does this mean they are NOT considered innocent before conviction? I doubt it affects subjudice protocol (not that I have seen much too alarming on this thread in that regard)

(2) Apart from possible exceptional circs i was not making reference to the pawns.


----------



## agricola (Feb 3, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I wasn't aware of (1). Does this mean they are NOT considered innocent before conviction? I doubt it affects subjudice protocol (not that I have seen much too alarming on this thread in that regard)
> 
> (2) Apart from possible exceptional circs i was not making reference to the pawns.


 
There isnt any specific rule (i) - Huhne is after all the only cabinet MP charged with a criminal offence whilst in office for at least a hundred years - but its inconcievable that he could do his job with a lengthy prison sentence hanging over his head.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 3, 2012)

JHE said:


> It's going to be interesting to find out what his version is. I suppose it is that his bitter twisted ex-wife has made it all up and is lying through her teeth, but we'll see.
> 
> It is much more likely, however, that his bitter twisted ex-wife has not made it all up, but had a quick rummage through her memory for a damaging _truth_ from their many years of marriage.


 Be interesting when he has to enter a plea.  Going for 'not guilty' will be a high risk strategy, presumably making a custodial sentence more likely (if he's gulity that is ).  However, whilst going with 'guilty' reduces that risk, it brands him a liar with regard to his current stance.  If I remember correctly a lot of this hinges on the timeline, stuff like whether she had enough time to attend a function and then do the driving.  Going with not guilty would suggest he's confident that she can't prove where she was was at the relevant time. *

* I'd better add a quick 'allegedly' to all that, given the sub judice stuff the site has to dance with.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Be interesting when he has to enter a plea. Going for 'not guilty' will be a high risk strategy, presumably making a custodial sentence more likely (if he's gulity that is ). However, whilst going with 'guilty' reduces that risk, it brands him a liar with regard to his current stance. If I remember correctly a lot of this hinges on the timeline, stuff like whether she had enough time to attend a function and then do the driving. Going with not guilty would suggest he's confident that she can't prove where she was was at the relevant time. *
> 
> * I'd better add a quick 'allegedly' to all that, given the sub judice stuff the site has to dance with.


If i recall right - not only was she at a function miles away, the offence was recorded slap bang where Huhne's diary would have placed him.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> If i recall right - not only was she at a function miles away, the offence was recorded slap bang where Huhne's diary would have placed him.


Looks like this will be his defence:


----------



## agricola (Feb 3, 2012)

TBH the key plea in this is not his, its hers.


----------



## JHE (Feb 3, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Be interesting when he has to enter a plea. Going for 'not guilty' will be a high risk strategy, presumably making a custodial sentence more likely (if he's gulity that is ). However, whilst going with 'guilty' reduces that risk, it brands him a liar with regard to his current stance. If I remember correctly a lot of this hinges on the timeline, stuff like whether she had enough time to attend a function and then do the driving. Going with not guilty would suggest he's confident that she can't prove where she was was at the relevant time. *
> 
> * I'd better add a quick 'allegedly' to all that, given the sub judice stuff the site has to dance with.


 
One possibility, I suppose, is that he will depend on it being just his word against hers.  If there is nothing that looks like an admission in any emails/voice mails/letters (or whatever Mr Plod found) and it does end up being just her word for it, a jury might strongly suspect he is guilty, but nevertheless come to the conclusion that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.  They'd then find him not guilty and he would claim to have been vindicated and most of the rest of us would just suspect the lying sod had got away with it.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> _No lib-dems are innocent._
> 
> That's your approach to the labour party member 'war-criminals' in a nutshell - all guilty - why bend over backwards to extend different standards to a fucking lib-dem?


 
There are no police investigations into war crimes at the mo, so I am not at least committing sub judice in commenting on them. They certainly need looking into as a bunch without getting into individual cases. 

One aspect that very clearly requires investigation, that I do not recall ever being mentioned, is the Geneva Convention regarding the responsibility of occupying forces regarding internal security of the nation occupied.

The failure of planning and preparation for the post Saddam phase is open and shut. I am not naming names there, so "innocent till proven guilty" doesn't apply to individuals. It is notable that Dennis Kuccinich attempted to impeach Bush in congress and Adam Price MP (plaid) tried likewise in the HOC (I assume with regards to Blair). 

Anyone who thinks that Labour members wouldn't have piled into try and hold a Conservative accountable for similar alleged crimes can PM me regarding the usual bridge for sale.


----------



## Badgers (Feb 3, 2012)

He is probably grateful to John Terry for deflecting some attention


----------



## gosub (Feb 3, 2012)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I wasn't aware of (1). Does this mean they are NOT considered innocent before conviction? I doubt it affects subjudice protocol (not that I have seen much too alarming on this thread in that regard)
> 
> (2) Apart from possible exceptional circs i was not making reference to the pawns.


 
No its entirely seperate from the individual and should not impact on any trial,its about  keeping the public office above suspision.


(2) You may not have been referenceing the "pawns", but soldiers on the ground of an illegal war are by definition "war criminals" and Nuremburg proved "only following orders" wouldn't get them off.  Its why Chilcot is between a rock and a hard place, can only damn Straw and Blair so much without exposing the rank and file.....


----------



## JHE (Feb 3, 2012)

Badgers said:


> He is probably grateful to John Terry for deflecting some attention


 
If you think John Terry is rude about black men, you should hear what Chris Huhne says about Greek women!


----------



## agricola (Feb 3, 2012)

gosub said:


> (2) You may not have been referenceing the "pawns", but soldiers on the ground of an illegal war are by definition "war criminals" and Nuremburg proved "only following orders" wouldn't get them off. Its why Chilcot is between a rock and a hard place, can only damn Straw and Blair so much without exposing the rank and file.....


 
The people at Nuremburg were all - or almost all - very senior military, SS and Party men though. The reason "only following orders" didnt work was because they had either drawn up those orders or - at a high level - oversaw the their implementation.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

agricola said:


> The people at Nuremburg were all - or almost all - very senior military, SS and Party men though. The reason "only following orders" didnt work was because they had either drawn up those orders or - at a high level - oversaw the their implementation.


and also because they were part of an NSDAP party programme they had been complicit in drawing up, and were 100% committed to (I'm pretty sure all those in the dock at Nuremberg were ideological Nazis of long standing, except possibly von doenitz)


----------



## gosub (Feb 3, 2012)

Among the show trials there were rank and file, many those accused of attrocities mass executions of POWs and concentration camp guards etc. They still were responsible for setting the PRECIDENT that only following orders is not a defense


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 3, 2012)

temper_tantrum said:


> Coulda woulda shoulda.


 
Are, apparently according to the song, the last words of a fool. Right up Huhnes street so to speak....


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 3, 2012)

gosub said:


> (2) You may not have been referenceing the "pawns", but soldiers on the ground of an illegal war are by definition "war criminals" and Nuremburg proved "only following orders" wouldn't get them off. Its why Chilcot is between a rock and a hard place, can only damn Straw and Blair so much without exposing the rank and file.....


 
Good points.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Huhne's just made 17 grand by resigning.


 How? And how do I get hold of such a clause for my employment contract?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> How? And how do I get hold of such a clause for my employment contract?


That's his severance for choosing to resign from the cabinet.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's his severance for choosing to resign from the cabinet.


  fucker


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> How? And how do I get hold of such a clause for my employment contract?


simple - get elected as a coalition party MP (which party is irrelevant, at HoC level they're largely identical) kiss enough ministerial arses to get a govt job, shaft the poor hard enough to get into the cabinet, then fiddle yer exes but do so incompetently.
Job done!


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 3, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> simple - get elected as a coalition party MP (which party is irrelevant, at HoC level they're largely identical) kiss enough ministerial arses to get a govt job, shaft the poor hard enough to get into the cabinet, then fiddle yer exes but do so incompetently.
> Job done!


My expenses are always truthful, I'd never get a job.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

equationgirl said:


> My expenses are always truthful, I'd never get a job.


Then get caught in act of public indecency with a member of the coldsttream guards (as happened to the last govt minister before huhne to face criminal charges whilst in office), try to illegally evade motoring offences, get caught lying to parliament (profumo), have an extra-marital affair and hush it up (Mellors, Parkinson), fail to register an interest concerning a ministerial colleague your department is investigating (Mandelson), try to fix a passport for a billionaire indian chum (Mandy again), fail to disclose taking a dodgy mate to secret meetings with high-level Israeli officials (Fox) - the possibilities are endless, all you have to do is _use your imagination_.
Sheesh! There's no helping some people....


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 3, 2012)

As funny as it is to watch this lying shit squirm I can't help feeling that the particular crime he is accused of may be quite widespread.  Not justfying it or anything but I wonder how many people out there have asked someone to take some points?


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> As funny as it is to watch this lying shit squirm I can't help feeling that the particular crime he is accused of may be quite widespread. Not justfying it or anything but I wonder how many people out there have asked someone to take some points?


more than a few but a) if they get caught they usually get charged, and
b) they aren't members of the Cabinet. The rules _are_ different for Govt ministers - and rightly so


----------



## JHE (Feb 3, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> I can't help feeling that the particular crime he is accused of may be quite widespread.


 
Burglary is widespread too and the last thing I want is some thieving Lib Dem kicking his way into my flat to steal my laptop.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 3, 2012)

JHE said:


> Burglary is widespread too and the last thing I want is some thieving Lib Dem kicking his way into my flat to steal my laptop.


 
I bet he would and all, probably get Danny Alexander to flog it down the pub for £25 as well.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

JHE said:


> Burglary is widespread too and the last thing I want is some thieving Lib Dem kicking his way into my flat to steal my laptop.


Laws is on tag.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 3, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> Then get caught in act of public indecency with a member of the coldsttream guards (as happened to the last govt minister before huhne to face criminal charges whilst in office), try to illegally evade motoring offences, get caught lying to parliament (profumo), have an extra-marital affair and hush it up (Mellors, Parkinson), fail to register an interest concerning a ministerial colleague your department is investigating (Mandelson), try to fix a passport for a billionaire indian chum (Mandy again), fail to disclose taking a dodgy mate to secret meetings with high-level Israeli officials (Fox) - the possibilities are endless, all you have to do is _use your imagination_.
> Sheesh! There's no helping some people....


 I have been single for a while, a handsome coldstream guard wouldn't go amiss 

Cheers for the tips


----------



## JHE (Feb 3, 2012)

Streathamite said:


> Then get caught in act of public indecency with a member of the coldsttream guards (as happened to the last govt minister before huhne to face criminal charges whilst in office)...


 
I had to look that up. I'd never heard of Ian Harvey before. The bit I like in the Wikipedia article is: * "[H]e paid the guardsman's fine as well as his own."*

I can't see Huhne paying Vicky Pryce's fine!


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 3, 2012)

it's pretty unlikely!


----------



## _angel_ (Feb 3, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> As funny as it is to watch this lying shit squirm I can't help feeling that the particular crime he is accused of may be quite widespread. Not justfying it or anything but I wonder how many people out there have asked someone to take some points?


Rodney in Emmerdale.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 3, 2012)

I can't understand where it went wrong for him, getting his missus to take his points then humiliating her in public by leaving her and divorcing her, just can't see a flaw in that plan .


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

They literally just look at wikipedia, quote them and charge 5 grand.

The rise and fall of Chris Huhne  - that's the wikipedia entry - not journalism.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

That's an insightful portrait from a decent commentator. Worth a read.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Or a bog standard portrait relying on stuff we already know and that tellingly relies on wikipedia.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

We already know because them is facts, therefore not entirely the preserve of Wikipedia.

What are you talking about five grand for?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

What?


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> What?





butchersapron said:


> They literally just look at wikipedia, quote them and charge 5 grand.
> 
> The rise and fall of Chris Huhne  - that's the wikipedia entry - not journalism.


Charge who what 5 grand.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

The guardian for that shit


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

White's an employee - he gets paid a salary to write that. And as an assistant editor the quality of his work is obv. directly overseen.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 3, 2012)

Even better. Will this _insightful portrait /hack piece do?_

Yes, yes it _will_.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

And it does.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 3, 2012)

agricola said:


> TBH the key plea in this is not his, its hers.


 Yes, logically, a guilty plea from her makes him guilty as well.  He'd have to argue she was lying and falsely incriminating herself in order to get back at him... This will be fun to watch.   

I'm imagining his first post-prison visit to the job centre, "must have clean driving licence...."


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 3, 2012)

They'll both plead guilty, there won't be any trial.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 3, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> I wonder how many people out there have asked someone to take some points?


 
Yes. I believe it was commonplace for rich people to get their au pairs to cop to the speeding offences. There was also an Alex cartoon many years ago about one of the characters trying to get their learner driver son to take the points. I know this trivium because when it appeared I wrote to them and pointed out that this was illegal; they confirmed it and I got a signed copy of one of the Alex books.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 3, 2012)

London_Calling said:


> They'll both plead guilty, there won't be any trial.


 I'm sure his febrile little rat brain will be in overdrive at the moment thinking of ways out.  'If she says this then I say this...'. They used to call it the Prisoner's Dilemma.  From henceforth it's 'The Divorcees Penalty Point Conundrum'.


----------



## London_Calling (Feb 4, 2012)

Watching him last night, he does seem to be going down the Jonathan Aitkin route of relying on 'the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play' i.e.  inpenetratable arrogance and denial.

All the more amusement for us, then.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Feb 4, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Yes. I believe it was commonplace for rich people to get their au pairs to cop to the speeding offences. There was also an Alex cartoon many years ago about one of the characters trying to get their learner driver son to take the points. I know this trivium because when it appeared I wrote to them and pointed out that this was illegal; they confirmed it and I got a signed copy of one of the Alex books.


 
Did you ever write to Charles Schulz and point out that there are actually restrictions against offering psychiatric help for 5c without holding appropriate medical qualifications? You might have got free Peanuts books. Or perhaps it might have been worth alerting the Guardian that penguins don't actually surf on turds, or have visible teeth, winning you a bunch of Steve Bell originals.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 4, 2012)

What can I say? I was younger then.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 5, 2012)

Quartz said:


> What can I say? I was younger then.


 
Young, reckless, and rock n roll by the sound of it!


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 5, 2012)

Teaboy said:


> As funny as it is to watch this lying shit squirm I can't help feeling that the particular crime he is accused of may be quite widespread. Not justfying it or anything but I wonder how many people out there have asked someone to take some points?


 
I've done it loads of times. Especially, when I lived in Belgium. I used to go with the ruse of saying I'd lent my car to a visiting business associate. Then I'd give them the phone number of this Saudi I knew who spoke no French, mangled English and had a speech impediment.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 5, 2012)

The point is that shifting a few points onto someone else is minor shit. It is wrong yes, but the points are not the issue. It's the having lied to the court that is the issue. Perverting the course. Courts take that very seriously indeed as you aren't much of a judiciary if you go soft on people who get caught trying to mug you off. Expression of power. Huhne could have lied about stealing a packet of Quavers from the garage, the initial crime isn't what makes the court enraged. It's the attempt to sly past them that angers a judge


----------



## coley (Feb 5, 2012)

And as an  elected politician his crime should carry a much more extreme punishment, starting with him being stripped of his position as an MP,though the only punishment will be a couple of lucrative directorships


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 5, 2012)

coley said:


> And as an elected politician his crime should carry a much more extreme punishment, starting with him being stripped of his position as an MP,though the only punishment will be a couple of lucrative directorships


 
I'm not so sure about that coley. Courts have shown often that when dealing with per jurors or perverting the course cases they bring the hammer down regardless of social standing. The offence of trying to blag the court strikes them as direct challenge to power and so it is dealt with. About keeping the power and independance as a seperate judiacary uninfluenced by other powers.

We know its a crock of, but they'll stick lords in jail for trying to fuck them so Huhne cannot expect his position to count for much.


----------



## coley (Feb 5, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm not so sure about that coley. Courts have shown often that when dealing with per jurors or perverting the course cases they bring the hammer down regardless of social standing. The offence of trying to blag the court strikes them as direct challenge to power and so it is dealt with. About keeping the power and independance as a seperate judiacary uninfluenced by other powers.
> 
> We know its a crock of, but they'll stick lords in jail for trying to fuck them so Huhne cannot expect his position to count for much.


I agree they take a serious view of this offence regardless of position, but I think there should be a madatory hamering


----------



## coley (Feb 5, 2012)

Stupid I pad and spatulate fingers don't mix, there should be a mandatory additional penalty over and above what the judge hands down for  elected politicians, besides the stupid git deserves all he gets for his obsession with sticking wind farms all over the place


----------



## JHE (Feb 16, 2012)

They've both pleaded not guilty.  I don't understand what her story is now.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 16, 2012)

And oddly enough neither of them were listed in the official records as being due in court today.

Sat with their backs to each others as well.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 16, 2012)

JHE said:


> They've both pleaded not guilty. I don't understand what her story is now.


Were the charges read out in Court today and if so what were they?


----------



## JHE (Feb 16, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17053575


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 17, 2012)

JHE said:


> They've both pleaded not guilty. I don't understand what her story is now.


Doesn't matter does it? Huhne has lost his job, she's already won. Now she'll try to wriggle out of it....but I think the plod have some good evidence, cos the CPS wouldn't have prosecuted otherwise.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 4, 2013)

Huhne has pleaded guilty (the lying fuck!) Wife pleads not guilty on grounds of 'marital coercion'. Huhne will resign his seat as an MP....leading to a by election in a marginal Lib Dem/Tory constituency (Eastleigh.) Nigel Farage anyone?!


----------



## marty21 (Feb 4, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Huhne has pleaded guilty (the lying fuck!) Wife pleads not guilty on grounds of 'marital coercion'. Huhne will resign his seat as an MP....leading to a by election in a marginal Lib Dem/Tory constituency (Eastleigh.) Nigel Farage anyone?!


 blimey - I thought he might weasel his way out of it  - this all has  all over it - why get her to take the points in the first place , plenty of drivers get points, and they would have been spent by now - then humiliating the wife by having an affair and leavign her for a younger woman - don't blame her at all for dobbing him in - he was living the high life as a minister.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

marty21 said:


> blimey - I thought he might weasel his way out of it  - this all has  all over it - why get her to take the points in the first place , plenty of drivers get points, and they would have been spent by now - then humiliating the wife by having an affair and leavign her for a younger woman - don't blame her at all for dobbing him in - he was living the high life as a minister.


i'm still disappointed it was the arsonist clegg rather than huhne who became leader of the limp dems


----------



## marty21 (Feb 4, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm still disappointed it was the arsonist clegg rather than huhne who became leader of the limp dems


 would have been even better if the Lib Dem leader had resigned - possibly lib dem mps knew at the time he was dodgy and didn't want this sort of thing to happen...

by-election should be interesting though - maybe it is time for Farage


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

marty21 said:


> maybe it is time for Farage


He'll drink to that


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Huhne has pleaded guilty (the lying fuck!) Wife pleads not guilty on grounds of 'marital coercion'. Huhne will resign his seat as an MP....leading to a by election in a marginal Lib Dem/Tory constituency (Eastleigh.) Nigel Farage anyone?!


Or Nigel Falange as Ian Bone calls him!


----------



## teqniq (Feb 4, 2013)

My heart bleeds.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Feb 4, 2013)

So sad.

When I heard the news, I cried.

srsli.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 4, 2013)

Wonder if anyone is working on The Great LibDem Prison Novel?  LIfe in the Orange Jumpsuit is my working title.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 4, 2013)

This is from Guido Fawkes, so treat with the usual amount of skepticism. Texts from Chris Huhne to his son. This looks like it's the reason he's decided to plead guilty.



> The court restrictions have been lifted. Rejecting Huhne’s application to have the case thrown out last week, Mr Justice Sweeney said the jury would _“be free to draw adverse inference”_ from these texts between Chris Huhne and his son, Peter:
> _*PH:* So nice to see our entire relationship reduced to lies and pleasantries in that letter. Do you take me for an idiot? The fact you said your parents were happier as a result of their divorce was disgusting… when you were having affairs makes me sick. You are the most ghastly man I have ever known. Does it give you pleasure that you have lost most of your friends?_
> _*CH:* I understand that I have really offended you but I hope that the passage of time will provide some perspective… I love you and I will be there to support you if you ever need it._
> _*PH:* You are right – the perspective involves me getting angrier with every day that goes by. You just don’t get it._
> ...


 
Good excuse to post this


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 4, 2013)

needs to check his use of autistic there but quite amusing to see huhnes boy ripping him a new one


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 4, 2013)

> _“Happy Christmas. I love you”_
> _*PH:* “I hate you so f**k off.”_


 
best bit


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> This is from Guido Fawkes, so treat with the usual amount of skepticism. Texts from Chris Huhne to his son. This looks like it's the reason he's decided to plead guilty.


 
This would have been 5 weeks ago though - he entered his not guilty after that.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This would have been 5 weeks ago though - he entered his not guilty after that.


 
Ah shit my mistake, I must've got the dates wrong. Can you just proof read all my posts from now on if I put you on a modest retainer or something?


----------



## Ranu (Feb 4, 2013)

This is the full transcript, from the Guardian

Texts between Chris Huhne and his youngest son Peter, then 18, were read out to the judge during pre-trial hearings which can only now be reported. 
They illustrated the terrible toll the court case and the marriage split had on Huhne’s relationship with the teenager.
One exchange was highlighted by the prosecution as being relevant to the crown’s case. It took place on May 21 2011 and read:
*PH:* We all know that you were driving and you put pressure on Mum. Accept it or face the consequences. You’ve told me that was the case. Or will this be another lie?
*CH:* I have no intention of sending Mum to Holloway Prison for three months, Dad
*PH:* Are you going to accept your responsibility or do I have to contact the police and tell them what you told me?
*CH:* Discuss it with Mum
*PH:* It’s not about her its about your accepting your responsibility to me
*CH: *Happy to talk about it with you. Dad
Huhne’s lawyer John Kelsey-Fry QC said those texts had to be viewed in the context of the highly emotional relationship between the two, with Huhne’s son refusing to see or speak to his father.
Their fractured relationship was demonstrated in a series of exchanges put before the judge, extracts of which were read aloud by Huhne’s lawyer.
21/6
_*PH:*_ Just tried you, ring back within five
_*PH:*_ Then pick up, pick up your fucking phone.
_*PH:*_ I don’t want to speak to you, you disgust me.
_*CH:* _Hope you are okay I’m visiting Gran on Saturday, would you like to come?
_*PH:*_ No I will see her without you.
28/6
_*CH:* _Peter, just to say, I’m thinking of you and I love you very much. It would be great to talk to you, Dad.
_*PH:*_ Fuck off
Then Huhne tried to write to his son.
22/7
_*PH:*_ So nice to see our entire relationship reduced to lies and pleasantries in that letter. Do you take me for an idiot? The fact you said your parents were happier as a result of their divorce was disgusting…
…when you were having affairs makes me sick.
You are the most ghastly man I have ever known. Does it give you pleasure that you have lost most of your friends?
30/7
_*CH:*_ I understand that I have really offended you but I hope that the passage of time will provide some perspective … I love you and I will be there to support you if you ever need it.
_*PH:*_ You are right – the perspective involves me getting angrier with every day that goes by. You just don’t get it.
25/12
_*CH:* _Happy Christmas. Love you, Dad.
_*PH:* _Well I hate you, so fuck off.
28/12
_*CH:* _Tiger, Have you had any news from St Peter’s yet? Love Dad
[No answer]
_*CH:*_ Congratulations, I’m really proud of you, Dad.
[No answer]
_*CH:*_ Well I’m proud and I love you, Dad.
_*PH:*_ Leave me alone, you have no place in my life and no right to be proud. It’s irritating that you don’t seem to take the point. You are such an autistic piece of shit. Don’t contact me again you make me feel sick.
16/1
_*CH:*_ I hope you are okay, just to let you know I’m thinking of you lots and love you.
_*PH:*_ You couldn’t think about anyone but yourself. You are a pathetic loser and a joke. Have fun with your [understood to be an unflattering reference to Carina Trimingham, Huhne’s partner]
21/5
_*CH:* _I do hope your exams are going okay, despite everything over the last few weeks. Thinking of you, love you, Dad. PS It’s grandad’s birthday today.
_*PH*_: Don’t text me you fat piece of shit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/feb/04/osborne-speech-banks-live-blog


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Ah shit my mistake, I must've got the dates wrong. Can you just proof read all my posts from now on if I put you on a modest retainer or something?


 
don't worry he will do it for free


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 4, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> don't worry he will do it for free


 
Editing my shitty inaccurate posts for nowt - It's a little bit communism


----------



## killer b (Feb 4, 2013)

that text exchange is glorious.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2013)

Whilst I've nothing but contempt for his politics, I do feel some sympathy for him on a personal level.  No need for this stuff to be published really


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Whilst I've nothing but contempt for his politics, I do feel some sympathy for him on a personal level. No need for this stuff to be published really


 
It was going to be used as evidence against him in court, there's a matter of public interest here. Is a member of our government lying about breaking the law?

Although I do feel sorry for Peter Huhne actually, maybe for his sake it could've been held back. Don't feel sorry for Chris Huhne at all.


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Whilst I've nothing but contempt for his politics, I do feel some sympathy for him on a personal level. No need for this stuff to be published really


I agree but he is a loathsome cunt who brought it all on himself.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Whilst I've nothing but contempt for his politics, I do feel some sympathy for him on a personal level. No need for this stuff to be published really


He was the one who published it!


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> It was going to be used as evidence against him in court, there's a matter of public interest here. Is a member of our government lying about breaking the law?
> 
> Although I do feel sorry for Peter Huhne actually, maybe for his sake it could've been held back. Don't feel sorry for Chris Huhne at all.


 
One thing disclosing it to a court, another thing altogether to have very personal texts thrown around over the national media.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

He ensured that they would be. He entered them.


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2013)

I'm rather full of admiration for the way his son refused to go along with his father's illegal attempts to frame his mother. Huhne brought this all on himself.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2013)

OK, he's an arrogant cock as well and probably had it coming to him to an extent.  To be fair, though, I think he genuinely did fall for someone else and want out of a loveless marriage.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Feb 4, 2013)

editor said:


> I'm rather full of admiration for the way his son refused to go along with his father's illegal attempts to frame his mother. Huhne brought this all on himself.


 
Yeah he's son would appear to have much more principle than his dad.


----------



## killer b (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> To be fair, though, I think he genuinely did fall for someone else and want out of a loveless marriage.


who gives a fuck about this?


----------



## teqniq (Feb 4, 2013)

I thought a complete lack of principles was part of the job description for a politician.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> OK, he's an arrogant cock as well and probably had it coming to him to an extent. To be fair, though, I think he genuinely did fall for someone else and want out of a loveless marriage.


What's that go to do with a decade of lies? With the incidents that have fucked him.

To an extent? 

(And do make it clear that you worked with/for the person he ran off with - informing his wife by text that he was doing this she had 30 minutes to cover the story up for him).


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 4, 2013)

Fuck him - he was prepared to shit on his own family in order to slime out of taking responsibility for his own wrongdoing.

And he brought it all on himself because his  -in his eyes only - very important, brilliant political  career was more important then anything else. Wanker brought down by his own ego and overinflated sense of his own importance. And another cunt who thinks that the rules dont apply to the likes of them.


----------



## Ted Striker (Feb 4, 2013)

killer b said:


> that text exchange is glorious.


 
I found it a bit depressing tbh.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 4, 2013)

Ted Striker said:


> I found it a bit depressing tbh.


 Certainly beats Nick Clegg's kids asking Daddy why people hate him.  Libdems - who hates them most, the public or their kids?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 4, 2013)

"Happy  Christmas! - Fuck Off"  > Moonpig.com


----------



## articul8 (Feb 4, 2013)

"Don't knock on my door you fat piece of shit" would be a good standard response to Lib Dem canvassers


----------



## Fedayn (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> OK, he's an arrogant cock as well and probably had it coming to him to an extent. To be fair, though, I think he genuinely did fall for someone else and want out of a loveless marriage.


 
So what?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 4, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> best bit


 
I have to disagree. I prefer this.



> CH: I do hope your exams are going okay, despite everything over the last few weeks. Thinking of you, love you, Dad. PS It’s grandad’s birthday today.
> 
> PH: Don’t text me you fat piece of shit.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> OK, he's an arrogant cock as well and probably had it coming to him to an extent. To be fair, though, I think he genuinely did fall for someone else and want out of a loveless marriage.


 
you know until your performance on this page of the thread I actually did not share some people's contempt for you.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 4, 2013)

It was a driving ban hardly a firing squad and to keep denying it even when he knew it was all over
 Hope he goes to jail pratt.
 March the guilty barstard in sgt major


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 4, 2013)

I don't know why he didn't just take the points/fine in the first place, the stupid fucker. The guy is a millionaire and could have paid any fine, increased insurance, even got his own chauffer if he wanted. It was a minor traffic offence - not enough to kill a political career these days. But the selfish liar had to have it his own way and now he's screwed his career and put another nail in the coffin of his family & friends.

Mind you, his wife ain't much better ime. I met her once at a meeting and took an instant disliking to her. She was talking about the recession & the fucked up economy, then started blathering on about how she has a "personal estate agent on Clapham Common" 

The son clearly has a career ahead of him as a spin doctor or chief whip


----------



## tarannau (Feb 4, 2013)

To be fair, my old Sloaney boss and his mates were quite shameless in turning over their regular speeding points to their more responsible other halves/cleaners/nannies. The whole idea of not being able to drive how they wanted, or that they would be deprived of their licence, was simply not an option to them. I suspect Huhne thought he could brave out this common scam. only to be foiled by his chupsty teenage lad and his incriminating text messages


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 4, 2013)

The Tories must love this, Huhne was the one Lib Dem they hated the most. Now he's gone, I wonder which one will become the focus of their ire? Cable? Yeah, it's got to be Twinkletoes.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Whilst I've nothing but contempt for his politics, I do feel some sympathy for him on a personal level. No need for this stuff to be published really


I don't.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 4, 2013)

likesfish said:


> It was a driving ban hardly a firing squad and to keep denying it even when he knew it was all over
> Hope he goes to jail pratt.
> March the guilty barstard in sgt major


 
Indeed.


----------



## Sirena (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Whilst I've nothing but contempt for his politics, I do feel some sympathy for him on a personal level. No need for this stuff to be published really


 
I'm sorry.  He's a politician who should be judged only by the highest standards.  He squirmed, he bullied, he twisted, he lied.  And, if he can do all that just for this silliness, imagine what he could do if he had his hands on the affairs of the state.  There should be a particular Hell reserved only for politicians and he should be made to go to it.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 4, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I have been single for a while, a handsome coldstream guard wouldn't go amiss
> 
> Cheers for the tips



Churchill was woken by his secretary with the news that a back bench MP had been caught naked on Hamstead Heath, having sex with a Grenadier Guard. Churchill asked "wasn't it very cold last night"? Yes said the secretary , actually it was one of the coldest nights this year. "Doesn't it make you proud to be British"said Churchill


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> OK, he's an arrogant cock as well and probably had it coming to him to an extent. To be fair, though, I think he genuinely did fall for someone else and want out of a loveless marriage.


If you want out of a marriage, just get out of it without looking for a third party 'to fall in love with'. 'Loveless marriage' isn't necessarily the experience of both parties in it.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Feb 4, 2013)

I wonder if Huhne is blessing the memory of Richard III, who gave us bail?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 4, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> I wonder if Huhne is blessing the memory of Richard III, who gave us bail?


he should be blessing his parliamentary forebears who repealed corporal punishment for offenders.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 4, 2013)

What a glorious mess to come out of a stupid bit of speeding. On another tack here is no need for hacking of mobile phones if one party to a conversation is happy to supply text messages as evidence in a court case.

This case also does even more damage to the image of politicians. They shouldn't be let out without a minder.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 4, 2013)

Ranu said:


> This is the full transcript, from the Guardian
> 
> Texts between Chris Huhne and his youngest son Peter, then 18, were read out to the judge during pre-trial hearings which can only now be reported.
> They illustrated the terrible toll the court case and the marriage split had on Huhne’s relationship with the teenager.
> ...


You can understand his son's anger but i think it's more about the hurt he as caused his mother


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 4, 2013)

tomorows sun headline should be "for huhne the bell tolls" ,i know i have cracked that joke before ,but i am proud of it


----------



## A380 (Feb 4, 2013)

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime....


----------



## weltweit (Feb 4, 2013)

Seems Huhne did not know the simple rule of driving which all sales people are aware of.

No points: drive as you like but take some care not to get caught speeding.
Some points: perhaps 3 or 6 drive with great caution, be very aware of road limits, be very careful.
Many points: 6 or 9, do not exceed the speed limit at all, be totally aware of the limit, DO NOT SPEED!

I would have thought that was common sense really.


----------



## pesh (Feb 4, 2013)

Wilf said:


> "Happy Christmas! - Fuck Off" > Moonpig.com


the image of that angry looking cat did pop in my head when i was reading that bit


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 4, 2013)

articul8 said:


> Whilst I've nothing but contempt for his politics, I do feel some sympathy for him on a personal level. No need for this stuff to be published really


Fuck him, I feel sorry for his kid but Huhne can fuck off.

After all he entered this stuff knowing that there was a good chance it would go public.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 5, 2013)

Dunno what all the fuss is about, it is not like he will go into high security or solitary or something and when he gets out and finds that he lacks his MP/Minister's salary that will also not phase him because he is loaded.

Of course it would all have been easier if he had just taken the driving points or ban whatever, but he thought he was above all that - rules are for "other people" ...

So Archer, Aitken, Moran, Huhne .. the list goes on ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 5, 2013)

> _*PH:*_ You couldn’t think about anyone but yourself. You are a pathetic loser and a joke. Have fun with your [*understood to be an unflattering reference to Carina Trimingham, Huhne’s partner]*
> 21/5
> _*CH:* _I do hope your exams are going okay, despite everything over the last few weeks. Thinking of you, love you, Dad. PS It’s grandad’s birthday today.
> _*PH*_: Don’t text me you fat piece of shit.


 

given his fruity language we can assume the reference was somewhat harsher than 'fancy woman'


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

Surely he didn't enter all the texts into court? Why would he enter the one with "We all know that you were driving and you put pressure on Mum. Accept it or face the consequences. You’ve told me that was the case. Or will this be another lie?".


----------



## weltweit (Feb 5, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Surely he didn't enter all the texts into court? Why would he enter the one with "We all know that you were driving and you put pressure on Mum. Accept it or face the consequences. You’ve told me that was the case. Or will this be another lie?".


 
I doubt Huhne entered the texts into court, I assume it was the prosecution.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

BA said on the last page that he entered them though.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 5, 2013)

two sheds said:


> BA said on the last page that he entered them though.


Oh, so he does... It would have been shooting himself in the foot though so seems very odd.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

Yes, they came from him, an attempt to get the case dropped because of damage it was doing to the family. Shameless. Not even post conviction sentencing mitigation, but another attempt to wriggle out of it.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 5, 2013)

I read that in the evening standard. I did feel a bit sorry for him at first but then ... nah


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, they came from him, an attempt to get the case dropped because of damage it was doing to the family. Shameless. Not even post conviction sentencing mitigation, but another attempt to wriggle out of it.


 
Bloody hell. Have your son admit that you told him you were driving in an attempt to plead not guilty. What the fuck were his lawyers thinking?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 5, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I read that in the evening standard. I did feel a bit sorry for him at first but then ... nah


 
I find it hard generate any sympathy for an MP found lying so publicly.

It is not as if I have a great regard for their honesty within the political realm either.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 5, 2013)

two sheds said:


> Bloody hell. Have your son admit that you told him you were driving in an attempt to plead not guilty. What the fuck were his lawyers thinking?


"Dear CPS, if you were in any doubt as to my innocence, here's evidence that I admitted my guilt to my son, which makes me innocent.  Well, anyway, I used this argument when I used to cheat on the wife."


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

Symptomatic of the whole coalition seeming to believe that everyone else is terminally stupid.


----------



## xenon (Feb 5, 2013)

I never liked him. You only need hear him talking on Any Questions to get the measure of the slippery turd.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 5, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> given his fruity language we can assume the reference was somewhat harsher than 'fancy woman'


Carina Trimmingham.  Not as good as Baroness Trumpington, but close.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 5, 2013)

My ex wife walked out on me ,i say nothing about ie rubbishing her ,i try not to bring up the subject of their mother but how they feel towards her is something they never tell me


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 5, 2013)

coley said:


> And as an elected politician his crime should carry a much more extreme punishment


 
Thıs ıs a concept that none of them seem to get. It's perfectly obvıous Huhne thınks the matter completely trıvıal, doesn't see what all the fuss ıs about, really does thınk the worst thıng about ıt ıs the effect on hıs famıly. None of them seem to understand where they are or what they're supposed to be doıng.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

It actually works the other way - judges tend to say 'there there you've been punished enough by the publicity'. No they fucking haven't, they bought into the publicity when they started the job.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 5, 2013)

I read that Hulne got banned a few months later after getting more points for using his mobile whilst driving  and that banning didn't damage his career


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

marty21 said:


> I read that Hulne got banned a few months later after getting more points for using his mobile whilst driving  and that banning didn't damage his career


He was yeah. 

It now seems that the OB themselves has these texts from july 2011 onwards as they seized his sons phone then - so the xmas mentioned is more like 2010, and that Huhne knew that they would at some point be produced by the prosecution, effectively fucking his case. So he continued lying for another 18 months in the hope that it would somehow go away (via pressure on the wife and from above i expect) despite knowing he was likely fucked due to these texts - then he introduced them himself before they could be sprung on him in order to try and get the case dropped due to the distress it caused his family. He literally hung on and lied until the very last second. I wonder what the judge will think of that when he passes sentence?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 5, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Thıs ıs a concept that none of them seem to get. It's perfectly obvıous Huhne thınks the matter completely trıvıal, doesn't see what all the fuss ıs about, really does thınk the worst thıng about ıt ıs the effect on hıs famıly. None of them seem to understand where they are or what they're supposed to be doıng.


 
I think you're right Phil; they just don't get it. It isn't only that they see the effects on their family as more important than their dishonesty, I also think they see their own ability and their 'contribution to public life' as far outweighing any lying, fraud or theft they might indulge in.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

Aha ta BA, that explains exactly what he and his lawyers were playing at. Given the British legal system they probably actually had a good chance of success with those tactics.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 5, 2013)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I think you're right Phil; they just don't get it. It isn't only that they see the effects on their family as more important than their dishonesty, I also tink they see their own ability and their 'contribution to public life' as far outweighing any lying, fraud or theft they might indulge in.


 
I don't even know ıf they're that deluded. I thınk a basıc lack of prıncıple ıs all that can explaın theır behavıor. Or maybe a lack of knowledge. They don't understand that beıng ın government ıs somethıng dıfferent from beıng ın prıvate lıfe, and they certaınly don't understand why.

A prıvate ındıvıdual mıght tell lıes about somethıng lıke thıs wıthout completely destroyıng hıs reputatıon. It wouldn't be admırable, but ıt wouldn't undermıne theır whole ıdentıty.

But polıtıcıans are publıc servants. So when theır personal lıfe ımpedes theır abılıty to serve the publıc, they have a duty to resıgn. If they don't resıgn under such cırcumstances, they prove that they are not ın polıtıcs to serve the publıc, but to serve theır own ambıtıon. Whıch ıs dısgraceful.

Not that ıt wasn't common ın the past of course... but the dıfference ıs, at least they used to _know _ıt was dısgraceful.

But people lıke Huhne obvıously assume that anyone ın theır posıtıon would do the same. Who wouldn't lıe to save hıs career? What would be the poınt of tellıng the truth? No-one ıs that foolısh are they?

I'm wıllıng to bet any money that the ıdea of tellıng the truth dıd not even _occur _to hım.

In other words, these people can't even _understand _why someone would act out of prıncıple rather than self-ınterest. They lıterally cannot _ımagıne _actıng out of prıncıple rather than self-ınterest.

Worst of all, they don't even _belıeve _that anyone acts out of prıncıple rather than self-ınterest.

And the reason for thıs ıs the economıc doctrıne they all ımbıbe, whıch teaches them that the pursuıt of self-ınterest ıs the authentıc expressıon of human nature. Whıch ın turn draws strength from the dullard Socıal Darwınısm peddled by our bıologısts and cognıtıve neuro-scıentısts. The lıkes of Hayek and Dawkıns have corrupted an entıre generatıon of polıtıcıans.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 5, 2013)

Oooh I don't know, I think they realise that now it's *them* sitting on top of the toilet.


----------



## Garek (Feb 5, 2013)

So, Huhne's career destroyed, Eastleigh by-election, narrow margin, Tories fail to take it, Tories go into meltdown, Cameron finds party ungovernable. 

Not bad work.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 5, 2013)

Garek said:


> So, Huhne's career destroyed, Eastleigh by-election, narrow margin, Tories fail to take it, Tories go into meltdown, Cameron finds party ungovernable.


 
Cameron won't have the balls or the honour to resign. But if the Lib Dems keep the seat, what will it mean for them and for Clegg in particular?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 5, 2013)

Just ın case anyone's forgotten the ''Calamıty Clegg'' ıncıdent, thıs makes very ınterestıng vıewıng.  Notıce that Huhne _lıes lıke the truth.  _Notıce that he _does not even recognıze the categorıes ''lıe'' and ''truth.''  _What ıs truth, really, after all?



He ıs quıte clearly a psychopath, and that's not a term I use lıghtly.

Further and even better evıdence of hıs fundamentally crımınal mentalıty:

''He started a company named Sovereign Ratings IBCA in 1994 that tried to "scientifically measure the risks of investing in different countries".In 1997 he became managing director of Fitch IBCA, and from 1999 to 2003 was vice-chairman of Fitch Ratings ..... Along with his work in newspapers and magazine he cowrote the book _Debt & Danger: The World Financial Crisis_ (Penguin, 1985) with Harold Lever, and wrote _Real World Economics_ (Penguin 1990).''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne#Career_before_Parliament

So, a thıef as well as a lıar.  In any decent socıety he'd have been locked away a long tıme ago.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 5, 2013)

the Lib Dem majority is only 3800 in Huhne's seat....but the tories popularity is tanking, could easily be held by the LDs.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 5, 2013)

How can his wife get away this now? She was one of the highest senior civil servants in the country - not exactly the sort of person to be 'coerced' by her husband I would have thought. I reckon she was quite happy to go along with it. Until he started shagging his bit on the side.


----------



## Garek (Feb 5, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> How can his wife get away this now? She was one of the highest senior civil servants in the country - not exactly the sort of person to be 'coerced' by her husband I would have thought. I reckon she was quite happy to go along with it. Until he started shagging his bit on the side.


 
Intelligent career women can not be emotionally manipulated or dominated by their husbands?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 5, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> How can his wife get away this now? She was one of the highest senior civil servants in the country - not exactly the sort of person to be 'coerced' by her husband I would have thought. I reckon she was quite happy to go along with it. Until he started shagging his bit on the side.


 
I think it is possible both of them may be punished for falsifying the driver of the car and the points, but then Mr Huhne will probably also be punished for lying in court. Is that right?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 5, 2013)

And thıs really does take the bıscuıt for sheer, black-hearted, vıcıous, evıl hypocrısy.



Where do they _fınd _these people, under a rock?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 5, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And thıs really does take the bıscuıt for sheer, black-hearted, vıcıous, evıl hypocrısy.


I think he was counting on 99% getting away with it himself .. what a wanker.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Feb 5, 2013)

Garek said:


> Intelligent career women can not be emotionally manipulated or dominated by their husbands?


I think the fact she's admitted in court that the reason she shopped him was cos he cheated, shows she knew exactly what she was doing all along. Now she's wriggling to get out of it, just like he did.


----------



## Garek (Feb 5, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I think the fact she's admitted in court that the reason she shopped him was cos he cheated, shows she knew exactly what she was doing all along. Now she's wriggling to get out of it, just like he did.


 
That's not quite what you said though.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 5, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> Where do they _fınd _these people, under a rock?


 
Clambering up a greasy pole with a hungry look in their eyes.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Frances Lengel (Feb 5, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> And thıs really does take the bıscuıt for sheer, black-hearted, vıcıous, evıl hypocrısy.
> 
> 
> 
> Where do they _fınd _these people, under a rock?




why do dicks like that always say "in a court of law"? Just say court, you pompous twat.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 5, 2013)

The higher up the tree the monkey climbs, the more he shows his arse!


----------



## sihhi (Feb 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder what the judge will think of that when he passes sentence?


 
I suspect he will still be given the short end of a sentence for perjury. 

Enjoy the Independent's take on it "Our public life has lost a distinguished servant too."


----------



## teqniq (Feb 5, 2013)

Funny how the Graun closed the comments on this article after only a mere 62, most of them scathing or derisory. I particularly like:



> FrankLittle
> 
> What's the difference between Clegg and Chris Huhne? Clegg always pretends he's in the driving seat.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2013)

sihhi said:


> I suspect he will still be given the short end of a sentence for perjury.
> 
> Enjoy the Independent's take on it "Our public life has lost a distinguished servant too."


Yes, a great loss to the Guardian too (this from an editorial, same article as teqniq linked to):




			
				twats said:
			
		

> The former energy secretary's guilty plea means a heavyweight loss not just to the Lib Dems but to national politics as a whole


 
Of course, he did used to be a journo for both of them.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 5, 2013)

Wonder which bit of the process he's most scared of? Being escorted out of the dock? Getting locked in the G4S van [leaves space for jokes]? Going onto the wing? Getting texts from his son?


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 5, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> why do dicks like that always say "in a court of law"? Just say court, you pompous twat.


In a court by the short and curlies.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 5, 2013)

idiot in the Independent wrote:



> Frankly, I don’t buy this. I should think that even among readers of this newspaper, there are hundreds who wouldn’t think twice about transferring “love points”, as they’re widely called, to a less encumbered spouse.


 


> We all know that the adulterers of ages in which text messages and tweets didn’t exist – JFK, Martin Luther King, Gandhi – went on to score great victories for humanity.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 5, 2013)

When you have too many points and are in danger of losing your licence, I wonder if any of them ever think of the more radical option - slowing down.


----------



## Belushi (Feb 5, 2013)

Wilf said:


> When you have too many points and are in danger of losing your licence, I wonder if any of them ever think of the more radical option - slowing down.


 
But they're *important*


----------



## Wilf (Feb 5, 2013)

Belushi said:


> But they're *important*


Perhaps as Climate Secretary he thought it was the same as Carbon Trading? Isn't that where you do dirty, despicable smelly things and then pay somebody else to say they did it? Anyway, once again, Happy Christmas Son - FUCK OFF!


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 6, 2013)

This is an overview of past election results in eastleigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastleigh_(UK_Parliament_constituency)


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 6, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> This is an overview of past election results in eastleigh
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastleigh_(UK_Parliament_constituency)


 
Looks like the Stephen Milligan experience turned them off the Tories.


----------



## ymu (Feb 6, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> This is an overview of past election results in eastleigh
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastleigh_(UK_Parliament_constituency)


That doesn't look anywhere near as impossible for Labour as they're making out. They had a steady 20%+ in 3rd for yonks, peaking at ~27% in 1994 (2nd) and 1997. It only dived below 20% (to 10% )in 2010, when Labour had earnt a massive kicking. It was pretty much a three-way marginal in 1997 and it looks like Labour votes went straight to the Lib Dems in 2010.

The Tories were on a safe 50% until Thatcher made the party toxic and Milligan died, dived to 24% and then gradually improved to the mid 30s and 39% at the last election vs Lib Dems on 46%.

The Tories aren't going to do better than their core vote of around 30%ish. They got 25% in the 1994 by-election and came second to Labour in a previously safe seat. 1994 is probably a very useful data-point, given that it was a by-election fought when a deeply unpopular Tory government was in power and their MP had just disappeared in a blaze of scandal (a blue rather than yellow Tory that time):

The Lib Dems lost a lot of votes back to the Tories between 1994 and 1997, so there were a lot of Tory voters temporarily punishing them in 1994, for the shitness of the government or the scandalous MP or both, on top of the 20% (of Milligan's 51%) that switched parties and never came back. (Unless Chidgey did something notable to lose nearly a fifth of his 1994 voters?).

Is Huhne's successor going to get punished as harshly as Milligan's?
- It's hard to see why not.

Will the Tories get punished too?
- It's hard to see why not. Most likely staying at home or a protest vote for UKIP.

Are Huhne's voters going to defect to the Tories?
- at a by-election under an unpopular Tory government in an LD-Tory marginal, probably not. Tories voted Tory in 2010.

Are Huhne's voters going to defect to Labour?
- about a third of them were Labour voters in 1997 and others will have been anti-Tory tactical voters, so many will.

I make that a three-way marginal with Labour being in quite a good position unless there is a strong challenge from an 'other'. Which there will be.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 6, 2013)

Wilf said:


> When you have too many points and are in danger of losing your licence, I wonder if any of them ever think of the more radical option - slowing down.


 
Don't be sılly, the laws don't apply to_ them.  _Just us.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> The Tories were on a safe 50% until Thatcher made the party toxic


which makes the labour government of the 1970s a strange psephological aberration, if the opposition party had the support of half the electorate


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> which makes the labour government of the 1970s a strange psephological aberration, if the opposition party had the support of half the electorate


 
You don't really do hıstory do you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You don't really do hıstory do you?


You don't really do reading do you?


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't really do reading do you?


 
Fool.  Who won the popular vote ın Februay 74?  Idıot.


----------



## ymu (Feb 6, 2013)

phildwyer said:


> You don't really do hıstory do you?


Nor psephology.


Pickman's model said:


> which makes the labour government of the 1970s a strange psephological aberration, if the opposition party had the support of half the electorate


It's not very helpful to look at the whole electorate when trying to work out what will happen in a single constituency let alone a by-election. The Tory vote in Eastleigh was never lower than 44% prior to Millligan's death and only dropped below 50% four times before 1994 (1964, 1966 and twice in 1974).


----------



## ymu (Feb 6, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> You don't really do reading do you?


And you do?

Shut up, both of you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> Nor psephology.
> It's not very helpful to look at the whole electorate when trying to work out what will happen in single constituency let alone a by-election. The Tory vote in Eastleigh was never lower than 44% prior to Millligan's death and only dropped below 50% four times before 1994 (1964, 1966 and twice in 1974).


so before 1979 thatcher hadn't made the tory brand toxic yet tory vote had drpped below 50% at the previous election. This sits ill with your claims above.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> And you do?
> 
> Shut up, both of you.


Yes dear


----------



## co-op (Feb 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> That doesn't look anywhere near as impossible for Labour as they're making out. They had a steady 20%+ in 3rd for yonks, peaking at ~27% in 1994 (2nd) and 1997. It only dived below 20% (to 10% )in 2010, when Labour had earnt a massive kicking. It w*as pretty much a three-way marginal in 1997* and it looks like Labour votes went straight to the Lib Dems in 2010..


 
Interesting post but I'd be careful about basing anything on Labour's vote in 97 - it was massively anomalous. Doesn't it look as though 5000 Labour voters just went straight over to the Lib Dems in 2010? Not giving Labour a "massive kicking" but to keep the tory out? And won't those voters either evaporate or just go straight back to Labour? I see this as there for the tories to take, Labour are too far out of it to have a chance - especially since their national poll recovery is mostly down to the mess the govt is making rather than any great popularity for Labour or Milliband. LD vote should go down significantly - the only question is, will the tory vote hold up enough? Low turnout for sure.


----------



## ymu (Feb 6, 2013)

co-op said:


> Interesting post but I'd be careful about basing anything on Labour's vote in 97 - it was massively anomalous. Doesn't it look as though 5000 Labour voters just went straight over to the Lib Dems in 2010? Not giving Labour a "massive kicking" but to keep the tory out? And won't those voters either evaporate or just go straight back to Labour? I see this as there for the tories to take, Labour are too far out of it to have a chance - especially since their national poll recovery is mostly down to the mess the govt is making rather than any great popularity for Labour or Milliband. LD vote should go down significantly - the only question is, will the tory vote hold up enough? Low turnout for sure.


I placed more emphasis on 1994 than 1997, but they're fairly similar and neither is particularly anomalous wrt the Labour vote. Labour's support in Eastleigh declined steadily from the 1950s on, from the mid to high 40s in the 1950s down to 27% by the end of the 1970s. Then 16-18% in the 1980s, 21% in 1992 and 27% in 1994 and 1997 and 21-22% in the 2000s.

A lot of the Lib Dem vote came from Labour in 1983 and again in 2010, with most of the rest coming from the now defunct Liberals. That is a lot of potential voters who _might_ turn Labour in the absence of a viable third party. Fuck knows how many actually will. I'm guessing the Lib Dems will hang onto around half their vote and lose the other half to Labour and 'other'.

I can't see the Tory vote holding up very well, although it's unlikely to collapse dramatically. There's no reason to expect large numbers of defections from Lib Dems to Tory when the Tories were always close to winning the seat (so won't have lost tactical voters to the Lib Dems). UKIP will take some angry types. Low income Tories and small business types have little incentive to turn out when Osborne is so busy screwing them over.

I'm getting something like:
Lib Dems: 25% (based on losing half of their 46%)
Tories: 30% (down from 39%, based on low turnout and losses to UKIP)
Labour: 25% + ?? (based on regaining lost voters from the 2000s and ?? from 2013 Lib Dem losses)
Others: 5% + ?? (based on ?? from 2013 Lib Dem losses)

Where ?? + ?? = 15% of the vote

It's definitely a long shot. Nothing like as long as Labour are making out though.

Personally, I'd like a progressive flavour of 'other' to take it. Proper long shot.


----------



## co-op (Feb 6, 2013)

ymu said:


> I'm guessing the Lib Dems will hang onto around half their vote and lose the other half to Labour and 'other'.


 


I don't think this will happen in Eastleigh - they actually gained council seats there in the locals in 2011 - they were defending 11 seats (held them all) - and attacking 3 and took them all (1 off Labour, 2 off independents). OK so in 2011 they weren't quite as unpopular as they are now, but cleggstacy had sure worn off, and yet they were able to gain seats.

Their vote there has to be pretty solid, I'd say - and this is partly why I think the tories will take it funnily enough since it means that most 'proper' LD voters will stick with their candidate, all the tacticals will revert back to Labour or not bother vote, and the tories nick it - if they can keep their vote even remotely close to where it normally is.


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)

Thanks, I didn't know how well they'd done locally since 2010.

You're right, it absolutely does hinge on how much the Lib Dem vote collapses, because their lost votes will go to anyone but the Tories. My guess that they will lose about half is based partly on the proportion of their 2010 vote that voted Labour in the 2000s and what happened to the Tories under similarish circumstances in 1994.


----------



## ChrisD (Feb 7, 2013)

If viewed as a three way marginal by election I presume there will be all sorts of waccy and celebrity candidates standing. Did I hear that Nigel Farage may be flying in?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 7, 2013)

The by-election date has been set for feb 28th - which is about as soon as they can have it.
Both coalition parties will want it quick in order to get the nastiness over ASAP and to make it harder for labour or an independent to build up momentum.


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)

Yes. A lot hinges on how many 'would vote Labour if they could win here' type voters do actually vote Labour. They have to decide whether it's still worth voting Lib Dem to keep a Tory out and, if not, whether a vote for an 'other' is the optimal way to register a protest. Labour are talking down their chances, which is a bit self-fulfilling in this situation IMO.

I assume the NHA Party will be standing. They'll do well, I think.


----------



## ChrisD (Feb 7, 2013)

ymu said:


> Yes..
> 
> I assume the NHA Party will be standing. They'll do well, I think.



NHA ???


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)

ChrisD said:


> NHA ???


http://www.nationalhealthaction.org.uk/

Doctors trying to save the NHS. That independent who fought and won a seat to try and stop a local hospital getting closed down but didn't stand in 2010 is one of those behind it.


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 7, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Churchill was woken by his secretary with the news that a back bench MP had been caught naked on Hamstead Heath, having sex with a Grenadier Guard. Churchill asked "wasn't it very cold last night"? Yes said the secretary , actually it was one of the coldest nights this year. "Doesn't it make you proud to be British"said Churchill


Just found this whilst following other links:



> On the night of 18 November 1958, Ian Harvey, then a junior minister in Harold Macmillan’s Tory government, was arrested with a guardsman in St James’s Park. When he heard of it the next morning, Winston Churchill famously commented “St. James’s Park on a November evening? Makes you proud to be British!”. The consequences for Harvey himself were more serious.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2013)

Jesus, the defence today seems to be trying hard to ensure she's getting a guilty.


----------



## killer b (Feb 7, 2013)

the #huhne hashtag is car crash reading this afternoon innit?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2013)

And this is before the cross examination!


----------



## weltweit (Feb 7, 2013)

No scratch that ....


----------



## pesh (Feb 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Jesus, the defence today seems to be trying hard to ensure she's getting a guilty.


 
she is though. 



> "It didn't look to me like I had any choice at all in the matter so I took this pen and signed, protesting all the time, but I did it."




i'm not saying i want her to be convicted, i really don't give a shit about any of the Huhnes, but she was the one that brought all this up. if you want to grass up a cheating partner for a bit of revenge choosing something you're not also guilty of yourself would probably be an idea.

it's right up there with phoning the police to complain the coke you bought isn't coke.


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)

She has a valid defence so no, she is not necessarily guilty. That is why there is a trial.


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 7, 2013)

pesh said:


> it's right up there with phoning the police to complain the coke you bought isn't coke.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but... I *think* it's an offence to sell something as a class A substance, even if it isn't.

Whereas I'm not sure it's an offence to possess something that you think is a class A substance, if it isn't.


----------



## ymu (Feb 7, 2013)

ymu said:


> She has a valid defence so no, she is not necessarily guilty. That is why there is a trial.


(Quoting myself because Quoad.)

I'd add to that that it is a defence (marital coercion) only available to wives, which I find a bit shocking.

They abolished the defence of provocation by adultery for husbands who murder their wives last year (technically available to wives too, but rarely relevant for them because women rarely manage to kill men in the heat of the moment). This one shouldn't be abolished, but it should be available to husbands (and non-married partners) too.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 7, 2013)

Latest from C(ashcroft

[QUOTE
Lord Ashcroft has commissioned a poll of voters in Eastleigh ahead of the by-election, due for the 28th February. It’s due for release at midnight, but rather embarassingly the Guardian managed to break the embargo and shove it on their website at ten to six. While they’ve taken it down again, the whole of twitter have already retweeted it, so we know that it will show CON 34%(-5), LAB 19%(+9), LDEM 31%(-16), UKIP 13%(+9).
More to come after midnight, no doubt, but the poll would appear to confirm that the race starts out, as expected, as being between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. Interestingly enough, while the Liberal Democrats have done extremely well at recent local elections in Eastleigh, the figures here suggest a decline in their vote of much the same size as in their national polling.
][/QUOTE]


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 7, 2013)

looks plausible to be honest


----------



## goldenecitrone (Feb 7, 2013)

I think the only fair sentence is at least five years in prison. For both of them. In the same cell if possible. The pair of cunts.


----------



## ymu (Feb 8, 2013)

> *Mike Smithson* ‏@*MSmithsonPB*
> Revised pie chart showing Ashcroft Eastleigh poll BEFORE application of certainty to vote filter pic.twitter.com/Exso93wK
> Retweeted by *Sue Marsh*









Too tired to analyse what this might actually mean right now.

C'mon UKIP!

(Was this poll taken before or after the gay marriage vote? )


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

On the Ashcroft figures i think that is bad for the lib-dems - that UKIP rise comes from the tories, and if it moves again it's going back to them or staying at home. Lib-dems will rely on both a UKIP rise and a drop in labour with that moving over to them. Can't see it. I can see the labour vote going up by another 5% over the next week.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

Labour should come a strong third in Eastleigh despite what they may hint at publically, or they should be asking questions; however I don't think any by-election difficulties they have had since 2010 are indicative of a problem for the party as such, more a problem for mainstream parties in general.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

I'd love it if the lib-dems were going around arguing with labour voters that a labour vote will result in a tory victory - that alone would ensure there is no labour lib-dem tactical voting.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Labour should come a strong third in Eastleigh despite what they may hint at publically, or they should be asking questions; however I don't think any by-election difficulties they have had since 2010 are indicative of a problem for the party as such, more a problem for mainstream parties in general.


Haven't seen them have any apart from Bradford to be fair. Not true of the other big two though.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Haven't seen them have any apart from Bradford to be fair. Not true of the other big two though.


 
I seem to recall there's been a few where the Tories and the Blairites have been able to suggest Labour didn't do as well as they should have; of course they both have their own agendas...


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

Never know with juries, but she must be fucked now. Prosecution seem (note seem) to have established min to win case.


----------



## ymu (Feb 8, 2013)

The National Health Action Party endorses local doctor as their candidate for Eastleigh by election

Hope they have a good showing. Could take a fair few protest votes off the Tories and Lib Dems, and a likely destination for Labour tactical voters who have nowhere else to go.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 8, 2013)

What I want to know is when the fucker is getting sentenced and for how long he's going to be inside.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

ymu said:


> The National Health Action Party endorses local doctor as their candidate for Eastleigh by election
> 
> Hope they have a good showing. Could take a fair few protest votes off the Tories and Lib Dems, and a likely destination for Labour tactical voters who have nowhere else to go.


Tactical voters will not touch it - there is no potential pay off. Really bad seat, but glad they're planting the flag.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Tactical voters will not touch it - there is no potential pay off. Really bad seat, but glad they're planting the flag.


 
I agree - it's a shame because lots of people who would support them will think they could get a good result here, and they're failure to come say fourth could dent enthusiasm for them in future.

I think they will scrape a bad fifth place probably and that will probably include a lost desposit


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 8, 2013)

I think he's a horrible, despicable man for forcing his then-wife into having an abortion.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I think he's a horrible, despicable man for forcing his then-wife into having an abortion.


Her testimony is that he did. The prosecutions is that he didn't.


----------



## ymu (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Tactical voters will not touch it - there is no potential pay off. Really bad seat, but glad they're planting the flag.


That's why I say tactical voters _with nowhere else to go_. There is no pay off for an anti-Tory vote regardless. Some will stay with the Lib Dems because at least it keeps a Tory out. The others have nowhere else to go unless they believe Labour can win it, which Labour is busy telling them they can't. NHA is the obvious choice for these people to register a protest at what the blue/yellow Tories are doing in the absence of any opportunity to make any difference to the outcome with their vote.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

But there aren't any tactical voters with nowhere to go - and nothing they would want from voting NHS - tactical voters are loving this, their votes may count in any number of ways. There will be none left over for the NHS candidate.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 8, 2013)

Quartz said:


> What I want to know is when the fucker is getting sentenced and for how long he's going to be inside.


It's not unusual that a sentencing hearing is held at a later date.i have not read if and when this will be


----------



## weltweit (Feb 8, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I think he's a horrible, despicable man for forcing his then-wife into having an abortion.


 
First I have heard of it, also seems a bit out of the bounds of this particular case, unless perhaps they are trying to establish a habit of bullying behaviour.


----------



## ymu (Feb 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> But there aren't any tactical voters with nowhere to go - and nothing they would want from voting NHS - tactical voters are loving this, their votes may count in any number of ways. There will be none left over for the NHS candidate.


 
I don't understand what you mean. Tactical voters in Eastleigh vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out. There is no other tactical vote possible in that constituency because no one but the Lib Dems and the Tories have a realistic chance of winning it (and Labour voters rarely vote Tory to keep the Lib Dems out). I can't see all of those tactical voters being happy to vote Lib Dem again and I can't see anywhere for them to go except for a protest vote or Labour (which is not a tactical vote if they previously voted Lib Dem to keep the Tories out).

Lots of tactical voters would be protest voters if there wasn't a tactical vote available in their constituency and lots of protest voters would be tactical voters if there was. For some, Eastleigh is no longer a constituency which has a tactical vote available.

Plus, this is a by-election. People look for ways to give the government a bloody nose in a by-election. NHA will take a fair chunk of both Tory and Lib Dem vote, not just the tactical-turned-protest vote. They hadn't announced that they were standing when Ashcroft's poll was done. The difference between the adjusted and non-adjusted poll results (based on certainty to vote) and the number of don't knows who voted in 2005 would give an idea of how much they might take. I haven't looked at the detail yet, but Labour are telling their voters that they can't win it, so I expect them to do well. Especially with the third reading of the 'destroy the NHS' bill coming up soon afterwards and David Owen's amendment fuelling media interest.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 8, 2013)

ymu said:


> I don't understand what you mean. Tactical voters in Eastleigh vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out. There is no other tactical vote possible in that constituency because no one but the Lib Dems and the Tories have a realistic chance of winning it (and Labour voters rarely vote Tory to keep the Lib Dems out). I can't see all of those tactical voters being happy to vote Lib Dem again and I can't see anywhere for them to go except for a protest vote or Labour (which is not a tactical vote if they previously voted Lib Dem to keep the Tories out).
> 
> Lots of tactical voters would be protest voters if there wasn't a tactical vote available in their constituency and lots of protest voters would be tactical voters if there was. For some, Eastleigh is no longer a constituency which has a tactical vote available.
> 
> Plus, this is a by-election. People look for ways to give the government a bloody nose in a by-election. NHA will take a fair chunk of both Tory and Lib Dem vote, not just the tactical-turned-protest vote. They hadn't announced that they were standing when Ashcroft's poll was done. The difference between the adjusted and non-adjusted poll results (based on certainty to vote) and the number of don't knows who voted in 2005 would give an idea of how much they might take. I haven't looked at the detail yet, but Labour are telling their voters that they can't win it, so I expect them to do well. Especially with the third reading of the 'destroy the NHS' bill coming up soon afterwards and David Owen's amendment fuelling media interest.


 
Tactical voters are people who want to vote to keep the Tories out right?

If so in Eastleigh they could probably vote Labour, Libdem, or UKIP before they vote for an untried party they've never heard of before.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 8, 2013)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 8, 2013)

ymu said:


> I don't understand what you mean. Tactical voters in Eastleigh vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out. There is no other tactical vote possible in that constituency because no one but the Lib Dems and the Tories have a realistic chance of winning it (and Labour voters rarely vote Tory to keep the Lib Dems out). I can't see all of those tactical voters being happy to vote Lib Dem again and I can't see anywhere for them to go except for a protest vote or Labour (which is not a tactical vote if they previously voted Lib Dem to keep the Tories out).
> 
> Lots of tactical voters would be protest voters if there wasn't a tactical vote available in their constituency and lots of protest voters would be tactical voters if there was. For some, Eastleigh is no longer a constituency which has a tactical vote available.
> 
> Plus, this is a by-election. People look for ways to give the government a bloody nose in a by-election. NHA will take a fair chunk of both Tory and Lib Dem vote, not just the tactical-turned-protest vote. They hadn't announced that they were standing when Ashcroft's poll was done. The difference between the adjusted and non-adjusted poll results (based on certainty to vote) and the number of don't knows who voted in 2005 would give an idea of how much they might take. I haven't looked at the detail yet, but Labour are telling their voters that they can't win it, so I expect them to do well. Especially with the third reading of the 'destroy the NHS' bill coming up soon afterwards and David Owen's amendment fuelling media interest.


It's simple - if there are tactical voters on the mode that you offer then they are already voting one way or another - tactically. There are none left over with nowhere to go because a tactical vote this time may count. Hence, they won't be voting NHS. Other voters can be won on a straight up defend the NHS approach but there are no tactical voters to be won - they are loving it because their votes now count. NHA will have no impact, they will not take chunks out of anyone. 

Wrong place, wrong time. But hopefully a useful experience - and not just for staff to make it theirs, to build up contacts networks and so on.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

This might be semantics. I'm not talking about people who do, in fact, end up voting tactically in three weeks time. I am talking about those who have, in the past, voted Lib Dem to keep the Tories out (tactical voters as opposed to tribal voters or protest voters), some of whom will see no point in voting tactically this time because voting Lib Dem does nothing to weaken the current government and because it's a by-election where tactical considerations are much less important than in a general election.

Put it another way, a lot of tactical voters from 2010 will not be voting tactically in 2013. The question is, how many and how will they split between Labour and NHA. Labour is telling people they cannot win, which may further encourage tactical voting types to register a protest, especially those who don't feel particularly inclined to reward Labour just for not being the Tories.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Labour will get 95% of them. The NHA candidate is meaningless this time in this seat. The tactical votes from 2010 are siting on their hands or going labour and tiny bit for UKIP.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

I don't think Labour will get 95% of a group which is inclined to vote tactically when they're talking down their chances of winning the seat. If they were talking it up, maybe. Those that wholeheartedly support Labour might, but even some of them might conclude that NHA is a more meaningful vote in these particular circumstances. Those who are not impressed with Labour before or since 2010 are likely to use the opportunity to say where their priorities lie rather than knowingly waste a vote on a party which is not doing enough to deserve it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

You're suggesting that there is a lib-dem tactical vote. Where have they come from? Labour. Where are they going - ell back to labour and hanging on to see what happens. The NHA isn't on a tactical voters radar as it can't affect the outcome.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

I've explained a number of times why I doubt they will all go back to Labour (voting for a party that can't win is not something tactical voters do unless they have no other options).

I've also explained that by "tactical voters" I mean "people who have voted tactically before and/or are inclined to vote tactically where there is a meaningful tactical option available to them" not "people who vote tactically on 28/02/13". The latter meaning is entirely circular in this argument as far as I can see.

We disagree on semantics or psephology or both. Can't tell which.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

So basically by tactical voters you mean labour voters who tactically voted lib-dem and who will now vote NHA - like you suggest . Yep that's circular alright.

Sorry, nothing doing here, not in this one.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

That's not how I defined them at all. You don't have to engage with my argument, but simply repeating yours and inventing straw men whilst pretending to engage is a bit shit, tbh.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 9, 2013)

weltweit said:


> First I have heard of it, also seems a bit out of the bounds of this particular case, unless perhaps they are trying to establish a habit of bullying behaviour.


I think it's to show he had form for coercing his wife into doing things she didn't want to do for his career.


----------



## Nylock (Feb 9, 2013)

Quartz said:


> What I want to know is when the fucker is getting sentenced and for how long he's going to be inside.


whatever he gets as a sentence he'll end up serving it in some cushdi open prison anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I think it's to show he had form for coercing his wife into doing things she didn't want to do for his career.


Of course but it's  not been _established_ this is the case - other abortions have been brought in - don't want to dwell on this beyond pointing out that it's a game and 8 of the jury are women and so this might be more directly relevant to their experience or of people they know. This is the game they are playing.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Of course but it's not been _established_ this is the case - other abortions have been brought in - don't want to dwell on this beyond pointing out that it's a game and 8 of the jury are women and so this might be more directly relevant to their experience or of people they know. This is the game they are playing.


True, abortion is an emotive subject, and to say that he coerced her into having one is not going to paint him in a good light. You're right, it is a game.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

equationgirl said:


> I think it's to show he had form for coercing his wife into doing things she didn't want to do for his career.


It's to show general coercion - to establish a framework of over arching coercion so strong and so sustained that she had no choice to do this one thing - literally - but to sign those papers. Him trying to make her sign those papers isn't enough - she literally has to have no choice but to do it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> That's not how I defined them at all. You don't have to engage with my argument, but simply repeating yours and inventing straw men whilst pretending to engage is a bit shit, tbh.


All i'm saying is that the NHA candidate will not get much here, a deposit save would be great - some lesson learned, some people to talk to etc, because the vote is too squeezed already - and between a very small set. The internal config of them is what counts - there is no outside vote to work with her. Sober senses.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Of course but it's not been _established_ this is the case - other abortions have been brought in - don't want to dwell on this beyond pointing out that it's a game and 8 of the jury are women and so this might be more directly relevant to their experience or of people they know. This is the game they are playing.


Been on jury service and yes the barristers do play the jury


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> All i'm saying is that the NHA candidate will not get much here, a deposit save would be great - some lesson learned, some people to talk to etc, because the vote is too squeezed already - and between a very small set. The internal config of them is what counts - there is no outside vote to work with her. Sober senses.


 
That's not all you're saying at all. You're saying 95% of tactical voters will vote for a party with no hope of winning because tactical voters don't vote for parties with no hope of winning. I think you actually mean that tactical voters with no tactical option will become tribal voters instead of protest voters. I disagree.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Yes. Which is why NHA is dead. Which somehow is not at all what i'm saying as well.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

I think you misread what I posted. Let me put some more words in to make it clear(er):

That's not all you're saying at all. You're saying 95% of tactical voters will vote for Labour (a party with no hope of winning) because tactical voters don't vote for parties with no hope of winning. Tortured logic aside, I think you actually mean that tactical voters with no tactical option will become tribal voters instead of protest voters. I disagree.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Not sure i like this bossiness, can you stop it?

I'm not saying that, i'm saying that your tactical vote doesn't exist, is tiny and is already bought. This instance of the NHA is not a goer.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not sure i like this bossiness, can you stop it?
> 
> I'm not saying that, i'm saying that your tactical vote doesn't exist, is tiny and is already bought. This instance of the NHA is not a goer.


That's a bit fucking rich coming from the bossmeister himself.

You'll need to define what you mean by tactical vote, because I think it's large with nowhere very attractive to go.




			
				shagnasty said:
			
		

> CON 34%(-5), LAB 19%(+9), LDEM 31%(-16), UKIP 13%(+9)


 
That's adjusted for certainty to vote (haven't checked the method of adjustment yet), which reduces Labour share by 1-2% and Lib Dem share by 2-3% and increases the Tory share by 5% compared to the unadjusted results.

Broadly, the Tories have lost 9% to UKIP whilst gaining 4% from .... who? Lib Dems have lost 16%, 9% of it to Labour and the rest to ... who?

I think there are a lot of don't knows who voted in 2010 and I think a lot of them are people who voted tactically in 2010 and are now thinking about what the fuck they're supposed to do now. I can't see any other way to explain those numbers.

NHA had not announced they were standing when the poll was done. I don't think they will be in danger of losing their deposit and they _might_ put up a decent challenge for fourth, give or take a Farage.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

Exactly - it's not the happy tactical vote that is now at home in the main campaign. It the fantasy vote that votes for a minor party. Do you really know what tactical voting is?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

I shall see you broken on the plastic only for fun wheel 29th feb.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

Yes I do know what tactical voters are, thanks. Ashcroft's poll shows you that they are around 16% of this electorate. We don't know how many tacticals are sticking with the Lib Dems but I estimated that they were about a third of the Lib Dem vote before the poll came out so, obviously, I think 16% is about right.

That is not tiny, which is why I think you must be defining tactical voters differently to me.

There are essentially three types of voter and these are my definitions:

Tribal voter: votes for the party they most agree with regardless of their chances of winning
Tactical voter: votes for the party they least dislike of those which have a chance of winning
Protest voter: votes for a no-hope party in order to register a protest of some sort, against the government of the day or the party they would normally choose for a tribal vote

None of these types are inherent to the individual although some tribal voters will always vote tribal regardless of the tactical/protest options available. There's no reason to think that tacticals will become tribal instead of protests when there is no tactical vote available.

And this is a by-election, where protest voting is much more 'tactically' useful than tactical voting.

See you on the 1st.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

These are not the 16% don't knows (which for a NHA vote you should be looking at), The tactical vote even if it had no where to go and so went headfirst NHA it will not mean anything.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> There are essentially three types of voter
> 
> and these are my definitions:
> 
> ...


 
I'm just curious as to where you think I lie on this axis of voter types, as I'm not convinced it includes everyone.

I'm broadly socialist, but could possibly be persuaded to vote Labour if it kept Tories out. I have voted Lib Dem once before. Last election I voted for the Green Party, and at the last locals I voted for the Alliance for Green Socialism.

If I was tribal, then I should have voted Green in every election as they've most represented my beliefs.

If I was tactical, then I should have voted Labour last time.

If I was a protest voter then I guess there's a case with me voting Green, but the Greens gained an MP recently, so hardly a no-hope party.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> I'm just curious as to where you think I lie on this axis of voter types, as I'm not convinced it includes everyone.


I said they were fluid categories which were not inherent to individuals (apart from some tribal voters) but depend on the specific constituency and electoral circumstances.



butchersapron said:


> These are not the 16% don't knows (which for a NHA vote you should be looking at), The tactical vote even if it had no where to go and so went headfirst NHA it will not mean anything.


I didn't say the16% were don't knows, I said they were tactical voters who voted Lib Dem in 2010 but will not in 2013. 9% have gone to Labour so far.

I did say that we don't know how many don't knows there are (or at least I don't, it might have been published by now). I did say that there must be quite a lot of don't knows amongst those who voted in 2010 for the Ashcroft poll swings to make sense.

I also said that NHA will pick up protest votes from the Tories and Lib Dems as well. The Tories lost more than half their vote in 1994 and gained a lot of that back from the Lib Dems in 1997. By-elections are an opportunity to give the government a good kicking and Eastleigh did just that in 1994 in fairly similar circumstances.


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> I said they were fluid categories which were not inherent to individuals (apart from some tribal voters) but depend on the specific constituency and electoral circumstances.
> 
> 
> I didn't say the16% were don't knows, I said they were tactical voters who voted Lib Dem in 2010 but will not in 2013. 9% have gone to Labour so far.
> ...


 
I don't believe you did, but I can accept that's what you meant, even if you didn't say it.

Will read this properly tomorrow, sober, to properly understand.


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> I don't believe you did, but I can accept that's what you meant, even if you didn't say it.
> 
> Will read this properly tomorrow, sober, to properly understand.





ymu said:


> None of these types are inherent to the individual although some tribal voters will always vote tribal regardless of the tactical/protest options available. There's no reason to think that tacticals will become tribal instead of protests when there is no tactical vote available.


 
In a safe seat there's no way to vote tactically; voters for any party (including the safe one) might go for a protest vote to register dissatisfaction or vote tribally. In a marginal, supporters of the (two or more) parties contesting the seat vote tribally (unless they're very hacked off with their party) and supporters of other parties may vote tactically or lodge a protest vote or vote tribally.

If you're a (left) Green:

- you can't (sensibly) vote tactically or as a protest in constituencies where the Greens have a chance of winning (in 2010 that was Brighton, Northampton and the one I've forgotten) because a tribal vote is the best way to get what you want;

- in a safe seat that isn't Green (all of them in 2010) you vote tribally.

- in marginals where the Greens have no chance you have a choice between a tactical vote to keep the Tories out and/or get Labour in (depending on which parties are contesting it) or a tribal vote for the Green;

- in the latter two cases you _might_ also have the option to make a protest vote if there is an 'other' offering an attractive protest vote (most likely single issue parties/independents) _and_ this mattered more to you boosting the Green vote.

- Greens voting tribally where they have no hope of winning are difficult to distinguish from protest voters from an external perspective.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> I'm just curious as to where you think I lie on this axis of voter types, as I'm not convinced it includes everyone.
> 
> I'm broadly socialist, but could possibly be persuaded to vote Labour if it kept Tories out. I have voted Lib Dem once before. Last election I voted for the Green Party, and at the last locals I voted for the Alliance for Green Socialism.
> 
> ...


 
broad voter categories are not the same as alignments in roleplaying games (good/chaotic etc)

ymu I think your logic is quite sound here - but you ignore the fact that except in very limited special circumstances a new untried party that has not had much time to do ground work is very unlikely to get a significant vote.

One thing that could cause a spike in the vote for the NHA would be if there was some sort of local or Hampshire based hospital scandal or health scare which could be portrayed by the media as down to cuts or government mismanagement.

Lastly I've not seen any evidence yet that the NHA really know how to organise or how to use social media effectively to create a plausible and exciting story - their press release on the candidate selection was a pdf for fucks sake!

Good luck to 'em but I think the best they can hope from this is to learn some lessons for the future and hopefully get enough votes to make them seem like a non-joke party.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 9, 2013)

It's not sound logic if it leads to daft conclusions or expectations (and we must tell the truth to the class comrade) - and here it has, it's logic made for a different seat and it's logic that been chopped by wanting it to happen . The vote which it's supposed to pull and the people its supposed to pull them from is just not there,


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

@ Spanky Longhorn

Richard Taylor won Kidderminster in 2001 and 2005 as an independent and is one of those behind NHA. The Lib Dems stood aside for him both times so it's not quite the same, but then we're not expecting NHA to come anywhere near winning and he beat the Labour incumbent in 2001 and held his seat in 2005. I think it's a bit soon to write them off due to inexperience.

I'm on Twitter and they are nigh on impossible to avoid if you follow progressive types, and that was before they announced their first candidate.

I don't think there needs to be a major local health issue to make people pissed off that the NHS is being destroyed. David Owens' amendment to the "kill the NHS bill" should bring them plenty of attention, for those that have not yet realised that the NHS has been more or less legislated out of existence.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

I agree that Richard Taylor is the one element NHA have in their favour, I also follow some of them on Twitter - so I do see quite a lot of echo for them, however I would argue that most of the people that follow and support them on twitter do not live in or near Eastleigh and many are people who will vote Labour when it comes to the crunch.

As you say Taylor won his seat because the Libdems stood aside and actively campaigned for him - also his campaign was around a specific local issue that people felt very fired up about and could see directly affected their every day lives


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

I don't see why Eastleigh would have fewer Twitter users than anywhere else (it'll be above average, if anything), nor why a constituency which is at least 60% anti-Tory would not have people following liberal types on Twitter.

There is no crunch for Labour tactical-voting types. If Labour were actually trying to win the seat then yes, but they're not. There's no point voting Labour in Eastleigh unless you want to tell Ed Miliband that he's doing a spiffing job. I don't know many non-tribal Labour voters who do. Maybe I just don't talk to the right people. 

Tribal voters will vote the same way they always do, the rest have a choice and Labour makes no more sense for them than NHA. Plus there will be a substantial number of protest voters from the coalition parties (the majority of whom would never vote Labour), and a few % of don't knows who voted in 2010 and who have no other option apart from NHA if they haven't already settled on Labour.

i don't think I can find any more new ways to say exactly the same thing so I hope that makes sense this time.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

I fully understand what you're saying, I just think you're wrong


----------



## ymu (Feb 9, 2013)

That's fine. We can play I told you so on the 1st March. There's no point going round in circles.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 9, 2013)

ymu said:


> That's fine. We can play I told you so on the 1st March. There's no point going round in circles.



And it will  be me saying I told you so


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 10, 2013)

> The Lib Dems' by-election campaign in Eastleigh was overshadowed yesterday when a former constituency chairman and NHS chief defected to a party campaigning against the Government's health reforms.
> Dr Graham Winyard, ex-chairman of Winchester Lib Dems, the next-door seat to Eastleigh, accused Nick Clegg's party of betraying the NHS by backing the shake-up of the service, as he signed up to the National Health Action party.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ars-lib-dems-fight-for-eastleigh-8488553.html


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Feb 11, 2013)

Puff piece from the Indie? They're fucked; the only paper that makes Rees-Mogg Senior look sane.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 11, 2013)

Huhne is a libdem of deep convictions ,four months with any luck

nicked that from indie comments


----------



## gosub (Feb 11, 2013)

read in the paper this weekend that by the time the paperwork arrived over the speeding ticket , he had already been stopped for driving with a mobile, and got a six month ban anyway


----------



## gosub (Feb 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Puff piece from the Indie? They're fucked; the only paper that makes Rees-Mogg Senior look sane.


William Rees Mogg 1928-2012


----------



## gosub (Feb 11, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> Huhne is a libdem of deep convictions ,four months with any luck
> 
> nicked that from indie comments


got to be longer than that to bar him from public office


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2013)

He's not going for public office - he's resigned and he's going back to the non-murky waters of international finance.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 11, 2013)

gosub said:


> got to be longer than that to bar him from public office


 

given the way he's ripped the piss and then done a guilty right at the last minute I should think the judge will be handing down a hefty custodial


----------



## gosub (Feb 11, 2013)

think it will be the one year required to bar him from public office and he'll be out of Ford in something like 6 months


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2013)

gosub said:


> think it will be the one year required to bar him from public office and he'll be out of Ford in something like 6 months


He's not going for public office!!!!


----------



## gosub (Feb 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> He's not going for public office - he's resigned and he's going back to the non-murky waters of international finance.


no, he's going to jail.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 11, 2013)

gosub said:


> no, he's going to jail.


 
The two are not incompatible.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 11, 2013)

UKIP continue their recent good run of posters:


----------



## Quartz (Feb 11, 2013)

gosub said:


> think it will be the one year required to bar him from public office and he'll be out of Ford in something like 6 months


 
He's resigned his seat so there's little difference anyway.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> UKIP continue their recent good run of posters:


 
If you look at callmedave he as the invisible tash that major had


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2013)

Going to have to go to maj verdict here isn't it? Encouraging sign for Pryce.


----------



## Chook (Feb 20, 2013)

This guy has posted the 10 questions. Reading them it could appear that a 'holdout' 1 or 2 jurors are being dobbed in to the Judge.

https://twitter.com/GaetanPortal

https://twitter.com/GaetanPortal/status/304201756500439040/photo/1

https://twitter.com/GaetanPortal/status/304201984880283648/photo/1


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

I read it as being genuinely confused by what constitutes MC (the judges advice on this was well patchy) _and_ someone (or more than on person) bringing in a religious element that was not present in any presented evidence confusing the issue - bloody christians. The answer given was this is not grounds to make a judgement, so i expect a guilty later this afternoon.


----------



## Chook (Feb 20, 2013)

Hung jury, discharged. The 'laws delay' is one of the harshest punishments a defendant can be given, imo. Surely this case is too high profile to be dropped.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

Yes, retrial to happen - which keeps Huhne outside a bit longer.


----------



## Chook (Feb 20, 2013)

A prominent ongoing re-trial after a succesful appeal in Brisbane used a questionaire system to vet jurors, adapted from US practice. Lawyer up on spouse murder charges in Perth (Western Australia) had Judge only, Judge shipped in from different jurisdiction (aquitted, prosecution appealing).

Any possibility of a Judge only trial under UK law for media saturated cases?


----------



## ymu (Feb 20, 2013)

Only if it's a minor enough charge to be heard by magistrates AFAIK. I don't think this is. Never heard of any special arrangements. The Aussie system is based on ours, but has mutated significantly since.

There are special secret courts for some stuff, but again, not this (AFAIK).


----------



## belboid (Feb 20, 2013)

> In another question, the jury asked if one of them could come to a verdict based on reasons that were not presented in court or supported by the evidence.


Really?  They really had to ask that?


----------



## Quartz (Feb 20, 2013)

Chook said:


> Any possibility of a Judge only trial under UK law for media saturated cases?


 
A defendant can ask for a bench trial.


----------



## ymu (Feb 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> Really? They really had to ask that?


That sounds like 11 jurors fed up with one idiot and wanting to shut them up.


----------



## belboid (Feb 20, 2013)

ymu said:


> That sounds like 11 jurors fed up with one idiot and wanting to shut them up.


Ash, yes, that makes sense. Tho it looks like more than one if they couldn't agree a majority verdict.


----------



## ymu (Feb 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> Ash, yes, that makes sense. Tho it looks like more than one if they couldn't agree a majority verdict.


That doesn't mean all the hold-outs were basing their verdicts on fantasy though.


----------



## gosub (Feb 20, 2013)

belboid said:


> Really? They really had to ask that?


How to get appeal grounds in one easy move


----------



## DexterTCN (Feb 20, 2013)

'Can you define what is reasonable doubt?'


----------



## weltweit (Feb 20, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> 'Can you define what is reasonable doubt?'


iirc the legal meaning is the same as the meaning in simple english.
Do you have a doubt and is it reasonable.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 20, 2013)

I am surprised they could not come up with a decision. Did she pervert the course of justice by taking the points for her husband? clearly she did.

Did she have a defence of bullying by her husband? That would be harder and might indeed split the jury, basically if they say no she gets punished, if they say yes, he does. Don't know the answer here.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I am surprised they could not come up with a decision. Did she pervert the course of justice by taking the points for her husband? clearly she did.
> 
> Did she have a defence of bullying by her husband? That would be harder and might indeed split the jury, basically if they say no she gets punished, if they say yes, he does. Don't know the answer here.


 
Not bullying, as I understand it, rather that he fitted her up with the offence, (without telling her first), and then she felt that she had no choice but to accept as fail accompli. To do otherwise would have laid him open to disqual/PoTCoJ.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I am surprised they could not come up with a decision. Did she pervert the course of justice by taking the points for her husband? clearly she did.
> 
> Did she have a defence of bullying by her husband? That would be harder and might indeed split the jury, basically if they say no she gets punished, if they say yes, he does. Don't know the answer here.


Have you read anything at all about this case before commenting on it and asking these daft question?


----------



## gosub (Feb 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Not bullying, as I understand it, rather that he fitted her up with the offence, (without telling her first), and then she felt that she had no choice but to accept as fail accompli. To do otherwise would have laid him open to disqual/PoTCoJ.


concure though between sending back form saying she was driving and form arriving for her to sign, he had been stopped by police for usin a mobile while driving and was going to lose licence anyway.  Unsure if this came up during her case, but knowledge of it sways me -only point in signing to cover up false statement already given


----------



## weltweit (Feb 20, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Have you read anything at all about this case before commenting on it and asking these daft question?


 
might well have ...


----------



## weltweit (Feb 20, 2013)

It would be interesting to know what the jury asked which caused them to be dismissed, on radio news it has just been mentioned that in the earlier 10 questions they had asked what is reasonable doubt but I wonder what the other questions were or what the final coup de grace had been.

I would have thought it might reflect badly on the judge if the jury was poorly advised as to its function.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> might well have ...


If you had weltweit you'd know that she offered a not guilty plea on the basis of marital coercion. The question of whether she had signed the papers or not was irrelevant to her defence. You know Huhne pleaded guilty as well right?


----------



## killer b (Feb 20, 2013)

read the fucking thread ww. ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> It would be interesting to know what the jury asked which caused them to be dismissed, on radio news it has just been mentioned that in the earlier 10 questions they had asked what is reasonable doubt but I wonder what the other questions were or what the final coup de grace had been.
> 
> I would have thought it might reflect badly on the judge if the jury was poorly advised as to its function.


arrghhh!! They've been all over the media and even on this thread this afternoon!


----------



## gosub (Feb 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> It would be interesting to know what the jury asked which caused them to be dismissed, on radio news it has just been mentioned that in the earlier 10 questions they had asked what is reasonable doubt but I wonder what the other questions were or what the final coup de grace had been.
> 
> I would have thought it might reflect badly on the judge if the jury was poorly advised as to its function.





Chook said:


> This guy has posted the 10 questions. Reading them it could appear that a 'holdout' 1 or 2 jurors are being dobbed in to the Judge.
> 
> https://twitter.com/GaetanPortal
> 
> ...


----------



## ymu (Feb 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Not bullying, as I understand it, rather that he fitted her up with the offence, (without telling her first), and then she felt that she had no choice but to accept as fail accompli. To do otherwise would have laid him open to disqual/PoTCoJ.


Marital coercion as a defence is quite strictly defined. Only available to wives and only if the husband was physically present and (I *think*) being physically aggressive. The fact that he gave her little to no choice isn't relevant. She's supposed to have the moral fibre to dob him in unless he's physically abusive, as far as I can tell.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 20, 2013)

ymu said:


> Marital coercion as a defence is quite strictly defined. Only available to wives and only if the husband was physically present and (I *think*) being physically aggressive. The fact that he gave her little to no choice isn't relevant. She's supposed to have the moral fibre to dob him in unless he's physically abusive, as far as I can tell.


 
You might well be right. tbh, as long as the kids are all old enough now, I don't care whether she goes down or not really. Mind you, she is an economist. no? Surely that's enough, anyway?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> You might well be right. tbh, as long as the kids are all old enough now, I don't care whether she goes down or not really. Mind you, she is an economist. no? Surely that's enough, anyway?


 
Indeed, I don't know why I tried to keep up with this thread, I don't really care if they both go down.


----------



## ymu (Feb 20, 2013)

brogdale said:


> You might well be right. tbh, as long as the kids are all old enough now, I don't care whether she goes down or not really. Mind you, she is an economist. no? Surely that's enough, anyway?


oh yes. 

I'm happy with whatever verdict hurts the LDs the most, tbh. I'm guessing getting his ex-wife and mother of his children sent down would be an extra nail in the coffin.


----------



## Combustible (Feb 21, 2013)

ymu said:


> Marital coercion as a defence is quite strictly defined. Only available to wives and only if the husband was physically present and (I *think*) being physically aggressive. The fact that he gave her little to no choice isn't relevant. She's supposed to have the moral fibre to dob him in unless he's physically abusive, as far as I can tell.


 
There seems to be a broader remit according to the judge.



> 7. You have defined the defence of marital coercion at pg 5 [of judge's written directions] and also explained what does not fall within the defence by way of example. Please expand upon the definition (specifically "will was overborne"), provide examples of what may fall within the defence, and does this defence require violent or physical acts?
> The judge said it did not require violence or physical acts. Referring to his written directions he said marital coercion meant that a wife "was so affected to be impelled to commit the offence because she truly believed she had no real choice".


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/20/vicky-pryce-jury-can-reach-majority-verdict


----------



## ymu (Feb 21, 2013)

Thanks. I meant physically threatening more than abusive as in actual violence.

Might that be why the last question was asked, if Pryce referred to religious belief during the trial? Q was: can the 'obey' bit of the marriage vow be construed as 'impelled to commit the offence because she truly believed she had no real choice". (paraphrased)


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2013)

Now confirmed constance briscoe fucking idiot arrest was in relation to Huhne/Pryce cases. Pryce jury told she may have lied to police. Another one fucked. Good.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 26, 2013)

why the delay in sentencing huhne? is this just standard procedure for linked cases, or is it because they'll hammer huhne extra hard if MC is proven?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> why the delay in sentencing huhne? is this just standard procedure for linked cases, or is it because they'll hammer huhne extra hard if MC is proven?


He has to wait till this one is finished yes. As to what the delay may do (esp if she gets a guilty) to the sentence, don't know if they have to formally lodge their sentence when his case finished or if they can do it off the cuff after (hopefully) having a bad hair day or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

Guilty


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

is Huhne going to be called for sentencing immediately?


----------



## agricola (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Guilty


 
Very quick work butchers.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

agricola said:


> Very quick work butchers.


Waited bloody long enough!


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 7, 2013)

let the sentencing begin


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

Has this ever actually been properly established as confucius?



> Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.


----------



## Santino (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Has this ever actually been properly established as confucius?


It should be 'Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig _n_+1 graves, where _n_ is the number of people you intend to get your revenge on.'


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Has this ever actually been properly established as confucius?


 
Wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't.

The famous "may you live in interesting times" phrase has never been found earlier than its appearance in a San Francisco newspaper in the 1880s, and never in any ancient Chinese text.


----------



## agricola (Mar 7, 2013)

Santino said:


> It should be 'Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig _n_+1 graves, where _n_ is the number of people you intend to get your revenge on.'


 
That the above phrase is not more popular is probably down to the lack of a vendetta culture in mathematics.


----------



## Santino (Mar 7, 2013)

Revenge is a dish best served at n-8 degrees centigrade, where n is the ambient temperature of the room.


----------



## steeplejack (Mar 7, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> let the sentencing begin


 
The pair 'will be sentenced at a later date', that normally means about three weeks to a month from now


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 7, 2013)

Idris2002 said:


> Wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't.
> 
> The famous "may you live in interesting times" phrase has never been found earlier than its appearance in a San Francisco newspaper in the 1880s, and never in any ancient Chinese text.


There were many Chinese living in America during the 1880s, many of them building the railroads. Perhaps one escaped to become a newspaper reporter and that statement is his sole contribution to future culture - not ancient Chinese but 19th century Chinese.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 7, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> There were many Chinese living in America during the 1880s, many of them building the railroads. Perhaps one escaped to become a newspaper reporter and that statement is his sole contribution to future culture - not ancient Chinese but 19th century Chinese.


 
He would have to have got in before the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882:


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

Right - so that's may 2011 that Cable knew.



> In another email, on 9 April 2011 Pryce admitted: "Actually I had told Vince [Cable] and Rachel [his wife] about points before when the three of us were having supper about a month ago – they were horrified at the time but VC has probably forgotten it by now. He was v tired that night."


 
...and there is no get out because a week later:



> On 18 April 2011, she informed Oakeshott: "Having lunch with Miriam c tmr. Should I hint at anything? I told Vince there is something hanging over him [Huhne] and he wanted to tell Clegg."


 
The cable meal was in jan 2011. He says _Oh blimey i have no recollection, we knew nothing until may 2011._

Pryce also claimed in April 2011:



> "Yes, I have told VC, Miriam C, MOak … and a few other Lib Dem Lords and others working close to NC." MOak is Lord Oakeshott, a senior Liberal Democrat politician and a third cousin of the Sunday Times political editor.


 
Oakeshott is also Cable's key advisor. Miriam is Clegg's wife.

Have they really learnt nothing - that they are now going to try and cover up the cover up of the cover up?


----------



## Tankus (Mar 7, 2013)

Huhne seemed to think his exwife would get 3 months in Holloway .....

Be interesting to see how close he was  ......CPS want to go after the cost too ......couple of his houses to come on the market soon , then ...perhaps ?


----------



## steeplejack (Mar 7, 2013)

well it seems to be working with Rennard, the media have moved on and that seems to have gone quiet in the last week. Only Cathy Newman's tenacity is keeping the story afloat- and then in the scarcely disinterested _Torygraph._

an absolute shuttlecrash for the loathsome yellows_, _with the latest local perve councillor allegations (teaming with the the revolting old lech Handy-cock to run bondage sessions in his house) making it worse. But sticking their fingers in their ears, burying their head in the sand and refusing to talk about it seems to be getting them somewhere, as people do get bored and move onto something else. Not that they should, but...


----------



## two sheds (Mar 7, 2013)

I wonder whether she'll appeal - important point of law about a wife being coerced I'd have thought. I'd also have thought she'd have a good chance on appeal if the judges don't feel this was given enough weight during the trial.

Or I might be talking shit, bob.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

If _the defence_ wasn't given enough weight? 

As regards law, it's so important that it's been understood for last 30 years that it is a joke defence that is on the verge of being removed.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 7, 2013)

Jeffrey Archer's writing didn't improve in prison. Wonder what impact it will have on her economics?


----------



## Firky (Mar 7, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I wonder whether she'll appeal - important point of law about a wife being coerced I'd have thought.


 
I was wondering that too. Will have to wait and see!


----------



## two sheds (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If _the defence_ wasn't given enough weight?
> 
> As regards law, it's so important that it's been understood for last 30 years that it is a joke defence that is on the verge of being removed.


 
In that case I was talking shit, bob. 

Although in cases of abuse I'd say there'd be a lot of merit in it, as in 'Sign this or you get hit'.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

**


----------



## Wilf (Mar 7, 2013)

firky said:


> I was wondering that too. Will have to wait and see!


 Fair bit of evidence that he was an overbearing scumbag for the jury, seemingly not enough that it tipped over into actual coercison.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Fair bit of evidence that he was an overbearing scumbag for the jury, seemingly not enough that it tipped over into actual coercison.


There surely cannot be an appeal on the grounds that the jury found her guilty, that she didn't like the verdict!


----------



## Wilf (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There surely cannot be an appeal on the grounds that the jury found her guilty, that she didn't like the verdict!


 Maybe she'll do a Gramsci and write some important stuff while she's in there?  Everything happens for a reason and all that.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

> 4. Pryce also urged the paper to investigate Huhne's finances (page 7), telling Oakeshott Huhne's ability to fund his political ambitions “has very little to do with 'making millions in the City' which he didn't”. She asks the paper to look at “dodgy investments in mining companies etc” and claims the MP got funds from his father, and through cheap shares when his father's company floated. (Ironically his father had a traffic safety company.) Pryce claims that apart from a bonus Huhne received of “a few hundred thousand” from one City company, she earned more than him. His pension, she claimed “should really be ours”.


 
As for gramsci, well given she is a hard-core neo-liberal freak it would be some turnabout. I wonder if her employment by Cable is even going to be looked at now?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh



> 9. Pryce wanted the Sunday Times story to be “he made OTHERS take his points not me specifically and that you heard it from another source, not me” (page 18).


----------



## Wilf (Mar 7, 2013)

Married to the Mob.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There surely cannot be an appeal on the grounds that the jury found her guilty, that she didn't like the verdict!


 
Can't you appeal against a verdict? If for example you claim that the judge had directed the jury wrongly? If not I presume you can appeal against a sentence for similar reasons.

OK I see she used the "archaic defence of marital coercion" - there's a similar and still current defence of Undue Influence which is a fascinating, complex and therefore highly expensive defence. Someone like a spiritual advisor is taken has having undue influence over someone they are advising so that if they get you to sign away your house and parrot then you have a defence. Sounds close but presumably not close enough with:

"She claimed Huhne had already given her name to authorities as nominated driver, and stood over her "pen in hand", forcing her to sign a form saying she was the driver. She said she had been presented with a "fait accompli" and was "worn down" by Huhne's "increasingly abusive" bullying over the matter, and feared the consequences if she refused."

Undue influence is possible although not presumed with a husband and wife and is I've read much less likely but not impossible where the wife is a successful and independent professional.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

All your doing is repeating her defence though - the defence that the jury rejected. They can't give permission to appeal on the basis that she wasn't found not guilty - can they?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 7, 2013)

> If you pleaded guilty at your trial, you can normally only appeal against your sentence.
> If you pleaded not guilty at your trial, you can appeal against your conviction and/or your sentence.
> You can normally only appeal if:
> 
> ...




https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-sentence-conviction/crown-court-verdict


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2013)

So, the grounds to appeal _because she didn't like the fact that the jury rejected her no guilty plea_ (i.e the idea that her defence wasn't "given enough weight") seem not to exist here. There may well be other grounds that mean she will be given leave to appeal - but pretty sure that it won't be allowed on the basis that her defence on the grounds of marital coercion wasn't bought by the jury.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 7, 2013)

Ah ok I see what you mean. I meant when the judge is doing the summing up for example and wasn't seen to be impartial.


----------



## Tankus (Mar 7, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Maybe she'll do a Gramsci and write some important stuff while she's in there? Everything happens for a reason and all that.


greek version of _ Mein Kampf ......... _for the Greeks, of the greeks ,  freedom from oppression ,and tyranny from without ....... practically writes itself


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 7, 2013)

Anyone hear Toynbee and some dick from the Mail on R4 this afternoon going on about how "sad" the whole affair is? It's not sad, it's contemptible - This is something Huhne & Pryce have done, not something that's been done to them.


----------



## Quartz (Mar 7, 2013)

two sheds said:


> I wonder whether she'll appeal - important point of law about a wife being coerced I'd have thought.


 
What coercion? That was her defence and the jury didn't buy it.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 7, 2013)

Fair point - assuming again that she's got grounds.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 7, 2013)

what an absolute clusterfuck for that family - all caused by Hulne


----------



## Tankus (Mar 7, 2013)

not so sure its 100% attributable to Huhne ....jury thought not ...too ! ... tough on the kids


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 7, 2013)

Tankus said:


> tough on the kids


The youngest is 18. Embarrassing, no doubt - mortifying even - but not necessarily tough.

They're not youngsters facing being taken into care because their mother has been sent to prison for shoplifting.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 7, 2013)

Vindicates the one who was texting him (not this verdict though).


----------



## Stigmata (Mar 7, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The youngest is 18. Embarrassing, no doubt - mortifying even - but not necessarily tough.
> 
> They're not youngsters facing being taken into care because their mother has been sent to prison for shoplifting.


 
This has been brewing for a few years


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 7, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Anyone hear Toynbee and some dick from the Mail on R4 this afternoon going on about how "sad" the whole affair is? It's not sad, it's contemptible - This is something Huhne & Pryce have done, not something that's been done to them.


 

Tonybee has been really getting on my wick recently. Hectoring pompous and wrong.

Oh its so sad that people perverting the course of justice have been red-handed. Weep for them


----------



## agricola (Mar 7, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Tonybee has been really getting on my wick recently.


 
Only recently?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 7, 2013)

Looks like McShane will end up visiting prison, after all?


----------



## steeplejack (Mar 7, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Tonybee ...Hectoring pompous and wrong.


 
when was she ever anything else?


----------



## steeplejack (Mar 7, 2013)

still it's all worked out nicely for Huhne hasn't it.

Resigned in disgrace, almost certain to be jailed, any relationship with his family evaporating under a mushroom cloud.

Still he seems to be such a rank sociopath that he won't even notice, and will probably see his few months in an open prison as an 'opportunity' and a 'new challenge'. No doubt within a week he'll be writing letters to the prison governor on behalf of fellow inmates.

I do feel genuinely sorry for his children, the horrible exchange of text messages between father and son revealed in the trial was painful to witness, really.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Mar 7, 2013)

steeplejack said:


> I do feel genuinely sorry for his children, the horrible exchange of text messages between father and son revealed in the trial was painful to witness, really.


 
Me, too. What shit parents. Hope the kids sue them for every penny they've got. Or failing that, simply murder them.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 7, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They're not youngsters facing being taken into care because their mother has been sent to prison for shoplifting.


Having an MP as a parent should at least get you on social services radar.


----------



## RubyBlue (Mar 8, 2013)

So, Vicky has been found guilty! I used to work with her and the idea that she could have been manipulated is ridiculous - strong and way intelligent - her undoing was the old saying about wrath and a woman scorned. I actually have loads of respect for her and wonder why the fuck she stayed married to such a wanker for so long!! But for such an intelligent woman why the fuck did she do what she did!!!

Briscoe's role need investigating - not sure how she can hold on to her job.


----------



## killer b (Mar 8, 2013)

Strong intelligent people are perfectly capable of being manipulated.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> All your doing is repeating her defence though - the defence that the jury rejected. They can't give permission to appeal on the basis that she wasn't found not guilty - can they?


 
Nope, only on points of law or points of fact. Sentence can be appealed as being too harsh, but that's different.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 8, 2013)

marty21 said:


> what an absolute clusterfuck for that family - all caused by Hulne


 
I'm looking forward to Huhne's son cunting him off on twitter again.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 8, 2013)

if anyones really lost out here its that lad.

I can sort of forgive the Mrs Huhne. She was angry and seeking revenge for having been wronged, but she did pervert the course by taking those pints in the first place so...reap what is sown etc. Huhnes just a penis. An oblivious self deluding one at that

wrt sentencing- does the lack of marital coercion mean that this will be considered as conspiracy and thusly extra hammering? I don't normally cheer as people go to chokey cos its shit but I'm making an exception here


----------



## RubyBlue (Mar 8, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> if anyones really lost out here its that lad.
> 
> I can sort of forgive the Mrs Huhne. She was angry and seeking revenge for having been wronged, but she did pervert the course by taking those pints in the first place so...reap what is sown etc. Huhnes just a penis. An oblivious self deluding one at that
> 
> wrt sentencing- does the lack of marital coercion mean that this will be considered as conspiracy and thusly extra hammering? I don't normally cheer as people go to chokey cos its shit but I'm making an exception here


 
I feel really sorry for the kids but she was just so stupid to bring this up in the first place, all for vengence - it backfired spectacularly, I have some sympathy for her but she did an incredibly stupid thing for such an intelligent woman.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 8, 2013)

Sentences range from 4 months to 36 months. Judges hate the idea of people fucking with the legal system and often seem to hand out hefty sentences for PTCOJ. The fact it was a premeditated (not spontaneous) crime will mean they both get a longer sentence. I reckon they will both get about 6-8 months.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perverting_the_course_of_justice/


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 8, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Sentences range from 4 months to 36 months. Judges hate the idea of people fucking with the legal system and often seem to hand out hefty sentences for PTCOJ. The fact it was a premeditated (not spontaneous) crime will mean they both get a longer sentence. I reckon they will both get about 6-8 months.
> 
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/perverting_the_course_of_justice/


 
yes well this is the whole point, if he'd taken the fucking points in the first place he'd be fine- its taking the mickey out of the court that riles. The judiciary re enforce their independence and standing every time they hammer a high up and its necessary in the maintenance of their own power that they are seen to indiscriminately lay the smackdown on perverters of the course, perjurers etc


----------



## belboid (Mar 8, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> yes well this is the whole point, if he'd taken the fucking points in the first place he'd be fine


well, except he'd probably never have got to be an MP, and so never got to beat Clegg in the leadership election...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2013)

I have no sympathy for either of them, but this is a prime example of the pointlessness of prison for a wide range of things it's currently used for. Give both of them long community service orders. And I mean long - every weekend for the next ten years, say, or an option to do it full time over three years. And punitive fines. Sending them to prison achieves nothing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 8, 2013)

other than making me laugh at the thought of huhne being issued with his smokers pack and bedroll


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 8, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I have no sympathy for either of them, but this is a prime example of the pointlessness of prison for a wide range of things it's currently used for. Give both of them long community service orders. And I mean long - every weekend for the next ten years, say, or an option to do it full time over three years. And punitive fines. Sending them to prison achieves nothing.


no, put them in prison. It's punishment they require. 

Petty thieves, shoplifters, non-fine payers etc are the sort of criminals who should not be in jail and afforded the treatment you describe above


----------



## marty21 (Mar 8, 2013)

steeplejack said:


> still it's all worked out nicely for Huhne hasn't it.
> 
> Resigned in disgrace, almost certain to be jailed, any relationship with his family evaporating under a mushroom cloud.
> 
> ...


 Hulne will not doubt 'do an Aitken' and get involved with prison reform because 'only now does he truly understand' he will prpbably eventually get a peerage as a rehabilitated ex-con -


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> other than making me laugh at the thought of huhne being issued with his smokers pack and bedroll


I prefer the idea of him being forced to take low-paid work for the rest of his life. He'll be out in a few months and when he comes out, he'll return to his wealth.

There's no real idea of making amends in prison sentences like this one. It's just pointless punishment for the sake of it.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 8, 2013)

Pryce and Hulne must finally be thinking  all this over 3 points on his licence


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 8, 2013)

prison isn't supposed to be about making amends though, it's the cessation of liberty as a punishment. Oh I'll broadly agree that it serves nobody here really, but at the same time it'll be something of a shock for the likes of huhne who's lived his life among the corridors of power to find himself at HMP Shitcreek sans paddle


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2013)

marty21 said:


> Pryce and Hulne must finally be thinking  all this over 3 points on his licence


Yeah. It's a tricky one for me because I could imagine circumstances where I might do something like this. If asked, I might agree to take points on my licence for a spouse or a mate if I thought it was for the greater good. I can see why the law gets riled by this kind of action, but I can't get too moralistic about it myself.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 8, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah. It's a tricky one for me because I could imagine circumstances where I might do something like this. If asked, I might agree to take points on my licence for a spouse or a mate if I thought it was for the greater good. I can see why the law gets riled by this kind of action, but I can't get too moralistic about it myself.


 I was speaking to mrs21 last night about this case - she doesn't drive - I asked her if she did drive, and I was on 9 points (never had more than 3) and got caught - would she take the points - she said NO  I think if she did actually have a licence and this case hadn't happened, she might have been tempted - I would just have to make sure I didn't leave her in 10 years time for my parliamentary assistant


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2013)

marty21 said:


> I was speaking to mrs21 last night about this case - she doesn't drive - I asked her if she did drive, and I was on 9 points (never had more than 3) and got caught - would she take the points - she said NO I think if she did actually have a licence and this case hadn't happened, she might have been tempted - I would just have to make sure I didn't leave her in 10 years time for my parliamentary assistant


Give her an incentive - you lose your job if lose your licence. That's the kind of circumstance in which I might do it.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 8, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Give her an incentive - you lose your job if lose your licence. That's the kind of circumstance in which I might do it.


 There used to be loads of stories about students taking points for drivers on the cusp of a ban, I know of one bloke who got his mum to take his points a couple of times as she didn't drive any more - I'm guessing if Pryce gets sent down as well - there will be less people willing to do it -


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 8, 2013)

They only got caught because she admitted it, though. Keep quiet and you won't get done. And if she does go down, that's definitely an incentive to keep schtum.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 8, 2013)

I know a salesman who was on 9 points and was caught speeding. He got a specialist (expensive) lawyer and pleaded problems for his firm if he could no longer drive. He ended up with 12-13 points but kept his licence on the understanding that any offence and he would lose it. He never sped again!


----------



## marty21 (Mar 8, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I know a salesman who was on 9 points and was caught speeding. He got a specialist (expensive) lawyer and pleaded problems for his firm if he could no longer drive. He ended up with 12-13 points but kept his licence on the understanding that any offence and he would lose it. He never sped again!


 I bet when he got back to 6 points he was tempted to floor it


----------



## Badgers (Mar 11, 2013)

Is today their day then?


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2013)

yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

2pm


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2013)

got your refresh finger ready butch?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Pretty sure i shall be  out most of the day, but expect to hear a great roar coming from the pubs and offices around 2-15.


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2013)




----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

To help with any sweepstake activity...



> _The sentencing guidelines for the judge include the following factors:_
> 
> _Nature and number of offences_
> _Whether premeditated or spontaneous_
> ...


----------



## weltweit (Mar 11, 2013)

> Two years later Lord Archer got 4 years for the same two offences.


 
Funnily enough I have just read Jeffrey Archer A Prison Diary Volume 2 Purgatory
It did not sound too bad inside HMP Wayland - A Category C prison - where he spent just 67 days.


----------



## Tankus (Mar 11, 2013)

Huhne seems to think 6 weeks and out ....which seems to imply a 6 month sentence


----------



## marty21 (Mar 11, 2013)

Tankus said:


> Huhne seems to think 6 weeks and out ....which seems to imply a 6 month sentence


 would give him time to learn his lesson - write a book about how he has repented, paid his price to society - then become a prison reformer - because know he truly understands the issues faced by prisoners - and then wait a couple of years until he gets a peerage for all of his good works


----------



## Tankus (Mar 11, 2013)

Depressingly believable


----------



## marty21 (Mar 11, 2013)

Neither of them can profit from a book about what happened though? Doesn't that come into the realm of proceeds from crime?


----------



## weltweit (Mar 11, 2013)

For someone in high office, he has shown himself to be such a calculating liar, and so selfish where his family is concerned, plus he wasted police time and the time of the courts, he should get a decent sentence otherwise it sends all the wrong messages to everyone else.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Tankus said:


> Huhne seems to think 6 weeks and out ....which seems to imply a 6 month sentence


Nope, that would imply 3 months.


----------



## coley (Mar 11, 2013)

9 months for him
3 for her


----------



## Lixer (Mar 11, 2013)

Put him in Aylesbury Prison


----------



## Badgers (Mar 11, 2013)

As long as he does not drive the wrong way up a one way street he might get away with it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

weltweit said:


> For someone in high office, he has shown himself to be such a calculating liar...


 
Pretty much a necessary trait for high office.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

holloway, holloway its a holloway


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 11, 2013)

suspended sentence for both of 'em.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

not-bono-ever said:


> suspended sentence for both of 'em.


Not a chance. None whatsoever.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 11, 2013)

Jail for both


----------



## Badgers (Mar 11, 2013)

not-bono-ever said:
			
		

> suspended sentence for both of 'em.



Nah. 

Will likely be short sentences for perverting the course of justice but I reckon about 3-6 months for her and 9-12 for him.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Nah.
> 
> Will likely be short sentences for perverting the course of justice but I reckon about 3-6 months for her and 9-12 for him.


 Sounds about right - unless the judge _really_ gets the hump at him for all the denials and games he maintained till the very last minute.


----------



## colacubes (Mar 11, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Nah.
> 
> Will likely be short sentences for perverting the course of justice but I reckon about 3-6 months for her and 9-12 for him.


 
More likely other way round given he pleaded guilty.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

OK, I'll have a go, then:-

For him : 18 months

For her : 9 months.


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2013)

firing squad for both of 'em.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 11, 2013)

killer b said:
			
		

> firing squad for both of 'em.



Too quick


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Not a chance. None whatsoever.


 
mentally, I prepare myself for then worst possible outcome, then anything else is a bonus


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2013)

the salt mines then.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 11, 2013)

killer b said:
			
		

> the salt mines then.



Paper cut class first. Then down to the salt mines


----------



## Lixer (Mar 11, 2013)

Chinese Water Torture


----------



## coley (Mar 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> holloway, holloway its a holloway



The first one of the year


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 11, 2013)

...don't forget the £100,000 that the CPS want from Huhne.


----------



## Badgers (Mar 11, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> ...don't forget the £100,000 that the CPS want from Huhne.



 

Roughly what time is the good news?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Roughly what time is the good news?


 

2 pm so they say


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 11, 2013)

Probably by 3pm


eta.
The court starts afternoon business at 2pm. There'll doubtless be a fair bit of speechifying from the judge before passing sentence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> ...don't forget the £100,000 that the CPS want from Huhne.


 

that should make his eyes water


----------



## coley (Mar 11, 2013)

Is there any point in jailing them though? should they not be forced to repay what it has cost in legal fees plus a suitable community service order, possibly along the lines of scraping chewing gum of the pavements of their local high st with toothbrushes?

Jailing them, though very satisfying, is expensive and pointless, IMOa


----------



## Badgers (Mar 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:
			
		

> that should make his eyes water



Really? Would be like me being fined £50 and paying it off £5 a month.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> that should make his eyes water


 
'Small change' for the likes of multi-millionaire Huhne. His estimated £3 to 4 M wealth made him about the fourth richest in the Cabinet...when he was there.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

coley said:


> Is there any point in jailing them though? should they not be forced to repay what it has cost in legal fees plus a suitable community service order, possibly along the lines of scraping chewing gum of the pavements of their local high st with toothbrushes?
> 
> Jailing them, though very satisfying, is expensive and pointless, IMOa


 

fuck it, I'll take satisfying. If we as a society see fit to waste money jailing a crack addict for shoplifting then I'm sure theres room in the public purse for this cunt.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

coley said:


> Is there any point in jailing them though? should they not be forced to repay what it has cost in legal fees plus a suitable community service order, possibly along the lines of scraping chewing gum of the pavements of their local high st with toothbrushes?
> 
> Jailing them, though very satisfying, is expensive and pointless, IMOa


If it was good enough for the birmingham six it's good enough for them .


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

coley said:


> Is there any point in jailing them though? should they not be forced to repay what it has cost in legal fees plus a suitable community service order, possibly along the lines of scraping chewing gum of the pavements of their local high st with toothbrushes?
> 
> Jailing them, though very satisfying, is expensive and pointless, IMOa


 If you wanted to mount a defence of our criminal justice system [I don't], you would _*have to*_ go for prison in this kind of case.  It might be expensive but not applying the normal sentence when it comes to rich and powerful people would reduce the integrity of the whole system, or somesuch.

Personally, I'm happy with it because I like to see reality catching up with the rich and powerful, as it does just occasionally.


----------



## coley (Mar 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> fuck it, I'll take satisfying. If we as a society see fit to waste money jailing a crack addict for shoplifting then I'm sure theres room in the public purse for this cunt.



What would be more satisfying is seeing them stripped of their wealth and given a visible CSO, it's pointless jailing anyone who is no danger to others


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> If it was good enough for the birmingham six it's good enough for them .


 I'm expecting the Pogues to honour their brave struggle a song: 'there was one man in Eastleigh...'


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

i reckon 6-8 months for both of them


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

coley said:


> What would be more satisfying is seeing them stripped of their wealth and given a visible CSO, it's pointless jailing anyone who is no danger to others


Jailing them is their punishment.

And we can burgle their houses whilst they are inside.


----------



## Lixer (Mar 11, 2013)

They'll be out in 3 months


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 11, 2013)

But seriously, what a pair of useless cunts - facing chokey cos of a 3 pointer and domestic


----------



## coley (Mar 11, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Jailing them is their punishment.
> 
> And we can burgle their houses whilst they are inside.


Soft time and out to write their memoirs, yeah they are really going to suffer, burgling their house sounds good though


----------



## coley (Mar 11, 2013)

not-bono-ever said:


> But seriously, what a pair of useless cunts - facing chokey cos of a 3 pointer and domestic


 Hell Hath no......ect


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

Lixer said:


> They'll be out in 3 months


 

yeah and huhnes going to go onto board memberships, speaking gigs, monied positions in think tanks etc. He's never going to get what _we all know needs to be done_. But in lieu of that I'll just enjoy his very public fall from grace and all the sweeter because it is over such a trivial initial matter of points on the license. Also it brings the number of disgraced up to what- 6 now? And we've yet to get the full fall out of rennard.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Jailing them is their punishment.
> 
> And we can burgle their houses whilst they are inside.


Have to be a pretty tight schedule - they have a fair few between them.


----------



## Lixer (Mar 11, 2013)

Let's just hope he gets a cell with a


----------



## coley (Mar 11, 2013)

Lixer said:


> Let's just hope he gets a cell with a




View?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

rope?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

...copy of the Highway code?


----------



## coley (Mar 11, 2013)

I doubt slopping out will be part of his regime


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

...an extremely intolerant and violent cellmate?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 11, 2013)

They've both just turned up at court.


----------



## Lixer (Mar 11, 2013)

Cellmate looking for a new "girlfriend"


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> They've both just turned up at court.


 
Kisses and high fives?


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

Proceeds of crime order, extensive community punishment and decent three or four year stretch. He should also be banned from driving for life.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

kenny g said:


> Proceeds of crime order, extensive community punishment and decent three or four year stretch. He should also be banned from driving for life.


 ... and have his Tesco Clubcard points passed on to Ms Pryce.


----------



## steeplejack (Mar 11, 2013)

Yep I predict eighteen months for Huhne plus granting of CPS costs application.

Pryce will get less, six to nine I reckon.

The more radical sentence would be sequestration of all wealth and unpaid community work for four years. but that won't happen. Let the vile scumbag subsist on benefits whilst doing menial tasks for others.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

Lixer said:


> Cellmate looking for a new "girlfriend"


 
This comment is wrong in quite a few ways. Are you suggesting you would like him to face unwanted advances , or are you suggesting that homosexual prisoners are de-facto rape threats for heterosexual ones?


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

Would be nice to have a plastic surgery re-construction order to wipe his smarmy smirk off his face.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

kenny g said:


> Would be nice to have a plastic surgery re-construction order to wipe his smarmy smirk off his face.


 
Isn't that a little smarmy smirkist?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

coley said:


> I doubt slopping out will be part of his regime


 

Thats a given seeing as we haven't had slopping out in british jails for over 20 years now. You get your own throne these days. Luxury etc, holiday camp /dailymail


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Thats a given seeing as we haven't had slopping out in british jails for over 20 years now. You get your own throne these days. Luxury etc, holiday camp /dailymail


 ...sky telly....


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 11, 2013)

Broken fuckin Britian - all over the world, professional  politicians get away with Murder, illegal wars, embezzlement, jizzing on interns and bribery on a huge scale - what do we get ? a couple of amateur wankers who cant even sort out a speeding rap between them. Pathetic.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

mandleson still walks the earth. Our proper evil politicians are so evil tey don't even get caught. See also: Blair the Recusant


----------



## Balbi (Mar 11, 2013)

Mandelson's teflon


----------



## steeplejack (Mar 11, 2013)

snetence not announced til four-thirty. back to work then.


----------



## Tankus (Mar 11, 2013)

shouldn't those who make our laws and then break them ...automatically get the maximum possible for the given crime  ....?

le_ssons must be learnt _


----------



## coley (Mar 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Thats a given seeing as we haven't had slopping out in british jails for over 20 years now. You get your own throne these days. Luxury etc, holiday camp /dailymail



A recent report by the National Council of Independent Monitoring Boards revealed that 10 prisons were still using the system in about 2,000 cells because they had not been able to install in-cell sanitation or could not afford the refurbishment costs involved in adapting Victorian buildings.

Even the Wail gets it wrong sometimes, though, like I said, doubt if it is practised at the jail,he's headed towards


----------



## Balbi (Mar 11, 2013)

19 mile an hour too quick. And all this trouble. Tsk.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 11, 2013)

Tankus said:


> le_ssons must be learnt _


 
But surely lessons have been learnt, this would never happen again and after all its all such a long time ago...........................


----------



## Tankus (Mar 11, 2013)

it was just a meaningless phrase stuck on the end   ...maybe we need_ a review _


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 11, 2013)

kenny g said:


> This comment is wrong in quite a few ways. Are you suggesting you would like him to face unwanted advances , or are you suggesting that homosexual prisoners are de-facto rape threats for heterosexual ones?


 
Yeah, prison rape jokes annoy me as well - Is rape funny when it happens in prison? Plus we're not in America - Our men don't turn fruity just coz they've got to do a bit of time. We've got _standards._


----------



## marty21 (Mar 11, 2013)

what are the chances of Pryce taking Hulne's sentence as well ?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Isn't that a little smarmy smirkist?


 
That was the name of a Russian lad in my school


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

marty21 said:


> what are the chances of Pryce taking Hulne's sentence as well ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 11, 2013)

coley said:


> A recent report by the National Council of Independent Monitoring Boards revealed that 10 prisons were still using the system in about 2,000 cells because they had not been able to install in-cell sanitation or could not afford the refurbishment costs involved in adapting Victorian buildings.
> 
> Even the Wail gets it wrong sometimes, though, like I said, doubt if it is practised at the jail,he's headed towards


 

I think iirc it was the strangeways riots that put the final nail in the coffin wrt slop out regimes. The post-riots analysis recommended certain things to diffuse tensions and the end of shitting in a bucket was one of them. I should imagine screwdom in general welcomed it too cos getting an early morning pissyshit bath from an irate inmate was a regular occupational hazard


----------



## ExtraRefined (Mar 11, 2013)

kenny g said:


> Proceeds of crime order, extensive community punishment and decent three or four year stretch. He should also be banned from driving for life.


 
You could do dounuts around a school playground at lunchtime at not get banned from driving for life.

They should lock them both in the same cell for a year or two. Early release if one dies.


----------



## Lixer (Mar 11, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Yeah, prison rape jokes annoy me as well - Is rape funny when it happens in prison? Plus we're not in America - Our men don't turn fruity just coz they've got to do a bit of time. We've got _standards._


Right. I dont actually wish him to have forced bum sex or anyone else for that matter. 
However, I do hope he does get a decent prison sentence.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

So even when he is facing bird Huhn has instructed his brief to try and squirm out of a 100k legal bill. I pray the man gets a good stretch. All the shit about his life being in tatters.. he will probably end up on the BBC in a couple of years whoring his sorry self. I truly hope the man is left penniless stuck to a bottle of white cider soiling himself as he grubs for fag ends in the gutters.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

Lixer said:


> Right. I dont actually wish him to have forced bum sex or anyone else for that matter.
> However, I do hope he does get a decent prison sentence.


 
Well said - I don't know why there is the difference but I have not heard of a prison rape culture in the UK from anyone who has  done time.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

Bob Marshall Andrews - the labour MP wrote to the court defending Huhne. Absolute treachery.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

kenny g said:


> Bob Marshall Andrews - the labour MP wrote to the court defending Huhne. Absolute treachery.


That's class solidarity. There's no sell-out here.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Can they ever recover? That money might help. Bit quiet on the dodgy deal now eh vicky?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

_at least they didn't have to attend the Lib Dem spring conference  _


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

**scrub that - confused judge with mitigation**


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

Close up


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 11, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Close up


 
Nose out of joint


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

Judge enters court..






Jesus


----------



## Tankus (Mar 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nope, that would imply 3 months.


its only 25% served ...then the ankle thingy at home ....apparently .....if they are not a risk to the public


----------



## marty21 (Mar 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can they ever recover? That money might help. Bit quiet on the dodgy deal now eh vicky?


 I think Hulne will go down the Aitken/Profumo route - although I can't imagine him working for a charity for 40 years


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

Be good if he was wearing a black cap. Time to sharpen the guillotine.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Judges comments suggest extreme fucked-offedness with huhne.

edit: not effecting sentence but costs


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

10% reduction for huhne for guilty plea


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 11, 2013)

these greasy fuckers will do their ( very short ) time, mostly in an open prison, not get involved in anything that will mark them as a troublemaker and emerge in a few months refreshed and humbled.They may even have found jesus

thense they will will make a modest but comfortable living as occasional columnists, talking heads on crime and prison reform etc etc etc.

we have seen this all before somewhere innit?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> 10% reduction for huhne for guilty plea


 

if the hammer is big enough 10% will mean not a lot

/dotC



Also I wish I could be  fly on the wall when he gets his first jailhouse breakfast. Likes of me, that was good stuff. Fresh eggs! luxury etc

Likes of huhne, he will be crying into his plastic tray


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Him 8  months


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Pathetic


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2013)

fucking liberty

/dc


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

not-bono-ever said:


> these greasy fuckers will do their ( very short ) time, mostly in an open prison, not get involved in anything that will mark them as a troublemaker and emerge in a few months refreshed and humbled.They may even have found jesus
> 
> thense they will will make a modest but comfortable living as occasional columnists, talking heads on crime and prison reform etc etc etc.


 
They're already rich. Neither of them ever need to work again if they don't want to.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 11, 2013)

8 months? He's got off lightly IMO


----------



## killer b (Mar 11, 2013)

hmph. i've been looking forward to this all weekend too.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

8 months for Huhne is a fucking joke. He knew exactly what he was doing.


----------



## steeplejack (Mar 11, 2013)

eight months is an absolute joke

if it was an ordinary person they'd be looking at two years for something like this


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 11, 2013)

Seems to be consistent with other sentencing for the same thing. Maybe a month or two longer because of his position.

From the bbc website:



> Cases involving lying to avoid penalty points are regarded far less seriously, and jail sentences tend to be around six months.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 11, 2013)

Not nearly enough, how much does this mean he will serve?


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

No justice - Just us. Our day will come.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

8 months - was hoping for more, but this is what I predicted


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Her 8 as well.


----------



## steeplejack (Mar 11, 2013)

Pryce also gets eight moons despite being 'slightly less culpable'

:/


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

See if CPS appeals that. Will they fuck.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

and 8 months for Pryce as well


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

Wish I has gone to the Court. Absolutely disgusting sentence for people in their position.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

some friend of Pryce's bleating on the radio saying "I am shocked at the length of the sentence, it's terrible, she's a good person, she gave up a lucrative career in the city to be a public servant, blah blah.....I'm not a lawyer or anything so I don't know what's appropriate in this case, but the sentence is far too long..." 

HAR FUCKING HAR


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

8 months.   At least he'll be out in time for his son to tell him to fuck off at Christmas.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

Sky News reporter now saying " a trifling matter" - like fuck it is.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

His son is one of the heroes in this.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

briscoe can relax - she might get a title out of this.


----------



## steeplejack (Mar 11, 2013)

he'll be out at the end of June / early July. Just an enforced three month break. Nothing really.


----------



## Lixer (Mar 11, 2013)

Be out in 4 months.


----------



## TitanSound (Mar 11, 2013)

kenny g said:


> His son is one of the heroes in this.


 
Well, something good had to come out of a pair of twats.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

According to the court reporter on the radio "Huhne and Pryce both looked utterly miserable in court"


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

TitanSound said:


> Well, something good had to come out of a pair of twats.


He only came out of one of them twats. Plus, fuck him.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

Eton must have a good few who've done time.  At least this gives Westminster School someone to take off their honours board.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

I truly hope they have a horrible stretch. Scum.


----------



## coley (Mar 11, 2013)

kenny g said:


> I truly hope they have a horrible stretch. Scum.



They wont


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

Have to say...the thought of this is spoiling my mood this pm...


----------



## weltweit (Mar 11, 2013)

coley said:


> They wont


No, I expect they will get to go to an open prison no?


----------



## coley (Mar 11, 2013)

weltweit said:


> No, I expect they will get to go to an open prison no?


Wherever they go they will be "looked after" this lot protects their own.


----------



## Lixer (Mar 11, 2013)

Do we really expect anything different?


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

> "I am sorry. I want to say that to family, to friends, to constituents and to colleagues, and more broadly to everybody who cares passionately about the causes I care about, including saving the planet for our children and our grandchildren."


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/11/chris-huhne-i-am-sorry 

He gave up the chance of saving the planet for his children when he was caught speeding in his personalised plated car and...


----------



## Bakunin (Mar 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> if the hammer is big enough 10% will mean not a lot
> 
> /dotC
> 
> ...


 
From this:






To this:






I'm simply overwhelmed with sympathy,


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

What on earth did Pryce do to deserve the same sentence as Huhne? Being a criminal whilst in possession of a vagina, or was a valid reason given?


----------



## weltweit (Mar 11, 2013)

In Archers prison diary he says the prison authorities were very careful not to give him anything extra lest they be seen by the press to be displaying favouritism.

I imagine the press will be interested in how Huhne's sentence goes also.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> What on earth did Pryce do to deserve the same sentence as him? Being a criminal whilst in possession of a vagina, or was a valid reason given?


 
She was found guilty of the same offence no?


----------



## RedDragon (Mar 11, 2013)

What's the point in banging them up - a £million fine would've fucked them off more.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> What on earth did Pryce do to deserve the same sentence as Huhne? Being a criminal whilst in possession of a vagina, or was a valid reason given?


 
Didn't plead guilty for a start


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

weltweit said:


> In Archers prison diary he says the prison authorities were very careful not to give him anything extra lest they be seen by the press to be displaying favouritism.
> 
> I imagine the press will be interested in how Huhne's sentence goes also.


Good lord, did you think that being treated well in prison means the authorities giving you more?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> What on earth did Pryce do to deserve the same sentence as Huhne? Being a criminal whilst in possession of a vagina, or was a valid reason given?


He got 10% knocked off the sentence for pleading guilty, she pleaded not guilty.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Huhne was sentenced to more anyway.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Thanks Spanky, Mrs M, I forgot about the guilty plea. Was still expecting more like 9 months for him, 3 for her.


weltweit said:


> She was found guilty of the same offence no?


Same offence, entirely different motives and he was the only beneficiary of the arrangement.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> What on earth did Pryce do to deserve the same sentence as Huhne? Being a criminal whilst in possession of a vagina, or was a valid reason given?


 
Well she got found guilty of perverting the course of justice, same as he did and the court rejected the idea that she'd been pressured into it by big daddy Huhne. Which is fair enough IMO.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> What on earth did Pryce do to deserve the same sentence as Huhne? Being a criminal whilst in possession of a vagina, or was a valid reason given?


Looks like the judge was pisssed off about her media/revenge games (even more than his [Huhne's] outright denials right up to the end).


> Although he said Huhne was "somewhat - but not greatly, in my view - more culpable" than his ex-wife, the judge said Pryce had shown an "implacable" desire for revenge following the end of her marriage, adding that her not guilty plea had revealed a "controlling, manipulative and devious side to your character".
> She had, he went on, "sought to manipulate and control the press" so as to achieve her "dual objective" of bringing down Huhne and not implicating herself.


But yeah, instinctively I was expecting her to get less than him. Even with her marital coercion defence getting kicked out, it was still clearly his idea, from which he benefitted - and took place in what _appeared to be_ an unequal relationship.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2013)

I don't have much sympathy, don't think we should be raising the red banner over her plight either. She entered into it as a willing participant, not like she was coerced.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> He got 10% knocked off the sentence for pleading guilty, she pleaded not guilty.


 Yeah, but at the last possible minute, when his defence was unravelling.  Not worth a 10% job in my view (though it was presumably 'pre-agreed' as such with the court).


----------



## kebabking (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> What on earth did Pryce do to deserve the same sentence as Huhne? Being a criminal whilst in possession of a vagina, or was a valid reason given?


 
she commited the same offence, and while Huhne may have 'lead' in the original offence (in that he asked her to take the points), they are only standing on front of the Judge because of her malice, and not a little stupidity.

of course, being but a lady her mind may have been sufficiently distracted by thoughts of kittens, embroidery and unicorns so she wasn't actually fit to make decisions about what she agrees, or not, to do...


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Well she got found guilty of perverting the course of justice, same as he did and the court rejected the idea that she'd been pressured into it by big daddy Huhne. Which is fair enough IMO.


Not quite true. There is no defence of being pressured into it, her only option on those lines was to try marital coercion (which requires a physically threatening presence when the dirty deed is done). No one takes someone else's points just because it's a fun thing to do. She was pressured, he benefited. I don't think that is the same level of offence at all.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 11, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, but at the last possible minute, when his defence was unravelling. Not worth a 10% job in my view (though it was presumably 'pre-agreed' as such with the court).


Well, if he'd pleaded guilty from the start he would have got a third knocked off...plus he's going to have to pay costs too I expect.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I don't have much sympathy, don't think we should be raising the red banner over her plight either. She entered into it as a willing participant, not like she was coerced.


 Aye, absolutely.  Just like the idea of him fuming in his cell on the day she gets out.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Looks like the judge was pisssed off about her media/revenge games (even more than his outright denials right up to the end).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, there's her appeal against sentencing right there. She was not on trial for dobbing him in, AFAIK.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> marital coercion (which requires a physically threatening presence when the dirty deed is done).


 That's not quite right. Physically threatening is duress. Marital coercion requires the husband to be present when the crime is committed and it's more about financial dependence, which she clearly wasn't.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 11, 2013)

Politicians need to remember that is accepted that they lie in Parliament and they are expected to do so by their parliamentary party. The public expects it, but when outside Parliament they should obey the laws that they have a hand in creating.

Huhne will get himself a job in business I am sure provided he doesn't go all "prison reformist" as a result of serving his sentence. You can never tell what a LibDem will do if let off the leash.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> What on earth did Pryce do to deserve the same sentence as Huhne? Being a criminal whilst in possession of a vagina, or was a valid reason given?


 

Marrying a tory. Quite a light sentence when you consider what a hideous crime that is.

/dc


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

I'm struggling to find any sympathy for Pryce, it's just that this is about a politician, his career and his desire to do _anything_ to keep that career going.  She went along with it - and then played a stupid game with the media, assuming she'd magically avoid the legal action - she deserves prison. However, ultimately, this is more about a scumbag politician who is willing to use his family, to exploit the person supposed to be the most significant in his life (well, y'know.. _this was Huhne_).


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> Not quite true. There is no defence of being pressured into it, her only option on those lines was to try marital coercion (which requires a physically threatening presence when the dirty deed is done). No one takes someone else's points just because it's a fun thing to do. She was pressured, he benefited. I don't think that is the same level of offence at all.


 
Fair enough - I suppose it boils down to whether you believe she was pressured by him. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, I can't see it but there's no way of knowing really. I wonder if they're still in the sweatbox or have they gone through reception yet? I know it shouldn't, but the idea fills me with hilarity.

The way I see it though, she helped him in his perversion of the course of justice so she's equally culpable. And perverting the course is serious business, they both should've got years rather than months.


----------



## Tankus (Mar 11, 2013)

Seems like she had poor advice from two "friends " both with agenda's of their own ...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2013)

I really dont have any sympathy. I think there are more worthy causes in terms of womens rights than her. her husband belongs to a party that is turning the clock back massively in terms of the possibility of people leaving violent partners etc.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

Tankus said:


> Seems like she had poor advice from two "friends " both with agenda's of their own ...


 Yes, it was staggering miscalculation to run this through the media.  Unless it was some kind of principled, get this off me chest thing (which it clearly wasn't), she was atonishingly stupid to think she wouldn't end up exactly where she is today.  Well, kind off - maybe she thought 'people like me' just don't do to jail. If she did it really demonstrates the protective psychological shell the powerful have in place.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 11, 2013)

Wilf said:


> ...she was atonishingly stupid to think she wouldn't end up exactly where she is today...


 
stupidity is the word - she initially suggested to the journo's that one of Huhnes lackeys (Jo Something) had taken Huhnes points, but failed to follow the logic train to the point where the Jo person would show said hack their clean driving licence...

i wouldn't be surprised if the judge had given her something extra for that - she committed the offence, _and_ was monumentally stupid, _and_ malicious (towards Huhne), _and_ tried to end the career of someone completely innocent of the whole thing. lovely peice of work.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

Anyway, would this be a good point to mention I went through a red light yesterday? This has the potential to harm any future applications to join One Direction or to become Archbishop of York.   Amazingly, my partner told me to fuck off when I simply mooted the issue of her taking the points.    Tenner for the server fund if any of the urban's ladies feel able to rid me of this unwanted burden.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

Wilf said:


> I'm struggling to find any sympathy for Pryce, it's just that this is about a politician, his career and his desire to do _anything_ to keep that career going. She went along with it - and then played a stupid game with the media, assuming she'd magically avoid the legal action - she deserves prison.


 
100% agree.



> However, ultimately, this is more about a scumbag politician who is willing to use his family, to exploit the person supposed to be the most significant in his life (well, y'know.. _this was Huhne_).


 
I still reckon she was a willing party at the time, taking the points to avoid damage to her husbands career from which she was happy to reap the benefits. Coerced my arse. That "trap" recorded phonecall was laughable.

She tried to dump him in the shit for something that she too was complicit in, failed in her attempt to manipulate the media, had to be found guilty, and got stuffed.

Haha. She deserves everything she's got.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> 100% agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I'm pretty much with you on all of that, I just see the whole thing starting off due to him and his career.  Coerced - no; pressurised - may well have been, who knows.  I'd just like to see him doing a bit more time.  But yes, the phone call both laughable and inept.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

Anyway, *prediction time*: Huhne to appear on Top Gear as his first post-prison interview.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Mrs Magpie said:


> That's not quite right. Physically threatening is duress. Marital coercion requires the husband to be present when the crime is committed and it's more about financial dependence, which she clearly wasn't.


I don't think duress is available as a defence for this charge. Hence the use of a weird medieval option. I read the precise opposite, that financial dependence (or anything else, eg loyalty) was not enough to prove marital coercion, hence the husband having to be physically present for the defence to be valid.


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 11, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Anyway, *prediction time*: Huhne to appear on Top Gear as his first post-prison interview.


How did that vain petrol-head get to be " Energy and Climate Change Secretary" ?
Not that I pay much attention to politics.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> How did that vain petrol-head get to be " Energy and Climate Change Secretary" ?
> Not that I pay much attention to politics.


 Same reason Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> ...and he was the only beneficiary of the arrangement.


 
really?

you think she would derive no benefit whatsoever from the continuation of Hunhe's political career (at £60k+ pa at this stage), or indeed suffered no inconveniece had he lost his licence?

in 2002/3 he was an MEP, they had kids, and she had a job all of her own - if he had lost his licence, which this speeding offence would have meant, she'd be doing the run-arounds. she took the points for the same reason as everyone else who takes the points for others - it means a deeply boring speed awareness course, a £60 fine, and a rise in car insurance costs, but its worth it because the other party can still drive.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

kebabking said:


> really?
> 
> you think she would derive no benefit whatsoever from the continuation of Hunhe's political career (at £60k+ pa at this stage), or indeed suffered no inconveniece had he lost his licence?
> 
> in 2002/3 he was an MEP, they had kids, and she had a job all of her own - if he had lost his licence, which this speeding offence would have meant, she'd be doing the run-arounds. she took the points for the same reason as everyone else who takes the points for others - it means a deeply boring speed awareness course, a £60 fine, and a rise in car insurance costs, but its worth it because the other party can still drive.


Do you think he would have taken the points for her?

Edit: just found this on a random search:



> *Move Over - I'll Take the Blame for Your Speeding*
> 
> *The Times, May 14, 2005 *
> *By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent *
> ...


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Fair enough - I suppose it boils down to whether you believe she was pressured by him. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't, I can't see it but there's no way of knowing really. I wonder if they're still in the sweatbox or have they gone through reception yet? I know it shouldn't, but the idea fills me with hilarity.
> 
> The way I see it though, she helped him in his perversion of the course of justice so she's equally culpable. And perverting the course is serious business, they both should've got years rather than months.


Oh, I agree it was a crime, just not that it was a worse crime that the one he committed. AFAIK she was not on trial for attempting to use the media to fuck him over whilst keeping herself in the clear. I guess that goes to mitigating circumstances (or anti-mitigation in this case), but I still cannot fathom how she is considered to have been as (or only 10% less) culpable than the person who asked her to commit the crime for him.

Is the judge divorced, per chance?


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

kebabking said:


> really?
> 
> you think she would derive no benefit whatsoever from the continuation of Hunhe's political career (at £60k+ pa at this stage), or indeed suffered no inconveniece had he lost his licence?
> 
> in 2002/3 he was an MEP, they had kids, and she had a job all of her own - if he had lost his licence, which this speeding offence would have meant, she'd be doing the run-arounds. she took the points for the same reason as everyone else who takes the points for others - it means a deeply boring speed awareness course, a £60 fine, and a rise in car insurance costs, but its worth it because the other party can still drive.


She earns a fuck of a lot more than an MP. He fucked over her career by becoming an MEP against her wishes and to the detriment of her job. She had nothing to gain financially by protecting him even without knowing that he was about to leave her for another woman.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> ...I still cannot fathom how she is considered to have been as (or only 10% less) culpable than the person who asked her to commit the crime for him.


 
Because she did pretty much everything that he did and lied about it for longer.



> Is the judge divorced, per chance?


 
Oh fuck off.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

For some reason, can't 'edit the edit' above. Was about to say it certainly adds to the idea of women taking points to carry on getting 'benefits' from male wages. However it also adds to the whole thing having a gender dimension.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 11, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Do you think he would have taken the points for her?


 
he might have - granted there's a bigger imperatave in him not losing his licence because that damages him politically, whereas nobody cares about the driving habits of civil servants - but in practical terms, if she was on 9 points, and he on 0, i wouldn't be that surprised if they had done the filthy deed.

lots and lots of people i know were doing it - people have become more reticent about it given the impovements in the optics on the cameras, and the increase in the number of 'front-facing' cameras, but in _principle_ i think that lots of couples would still do it in similar circumstances...


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> She had nothing to gain financially by protecting him even without knowing that he was about to leave her for another woman.


 
Oh no, of course not.

Have you any idea what politicians earn when they take on directorships etc etc?


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Much the same as high-powered economists do throughout their career, especially when they're Lib Dems (this was back in the 1990s, remember).

She was the high earner in this relationship. Of course she did it to protect him but she had no need to do it to protect his earnings. Fucking him over would have allowed her to earn more.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Wilf said:


> I'm struggling to find any sympathy for Pryce, it's just that this is about a politician, his career and his desire to do _anything_ to keep that career going. She went along with it - and then played a stupid game with the media, assuming she'd magically avoid the legal action - she deserves prison. However, ultimately, this is more about a scumbag politician who is willing to use his family, to exploit the person supposed to be the most significant in his life (well, y'know.. _this was Huhne_).


Ultimately it's about a scumbag class. One they are both part of and that both tried to use their position in  in order to gain their own advantage from.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

kebabking said:


> lots and lots of people i know were doing it - people have become more reticent about it given the impovements in the optics on the cameras, and the increase in the number of 'front-facing' cameras, but in _principle_ i think that lots of couples would still do it in similar circumstances...


Yep. I don't drive and I'm single, so it's not going to happen at the moment. But I'd do it in principle. Sure.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> Much the same as high-powered economists do throughout their career, especially when they're Lib Dems (this was back in the 1990s, remember).
> 
> She was the high earner in this relationship. Of course she did it to protect him but she had no need to do it to protect his earnings. Fucking him over would have allowed her to earn more.


He went on to become a cabinet minister. I don't know much about her or what she did for a living, but I'd think there's more to this than simply earnings. Did she not want her husband to be a high-powered politician?


----------



## Wilf (Mar 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ultimately it's about a scumbag class. One they are both part of and that both tried to use their position in it in order to gain their own advantage from.


 I agree, that's the bigger picture and I was looking for big sentences for both of them, I'm just nurdling around with degrees of guilt, circles of hell and all that.  Yes, that's the bigger picture, I just do see some rather predictable gender/family roles in play in terms of _*how*_ the bigger story ran.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

Wilf said:


> I agree, that's the bigger picture and I was looking for big sentences for both of them, I'm just nurdling around with degrees of guilt, circles of hell and all that. Yes, that's the bigger picture, I just do see some rather predictable gender/family roles in play in terms of _*how*_ the bigger story ran.


From the larger picture and bigger stats, patterns emerge that reflect power and earnings inequalities between men and women. But you can't use that to make any definitive statements about individual cases. And this is about as atypical a couple as you'll get, I would have thought.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> She was the high earner in this relationship.


 
Not always. For much of the latter part of their marriage she worked for the DTI and other government departments so would've been on the around the same as him.



> Of course she did it to protect him but she had no need to do it to protect his earnings.


 
It's not all about earnings. I dare say she'd have considered that having an ex-cabinet minister husband with a bollock-load of directorships in later life probably would do her career no harm either.

The surprising thing is that for an exceedingly intellectually accomplished woman, she didn't half fuck this up!


----------



## free spirit (Mar 11, 2013)

Won't someone please think of the other prisoners...

wonder if he's going to end up on the nonce wing for his own protection?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 11, 2013)

Fuck sake, his Channel 4 interview he was on about the awful media campaign against Rennard, he just can't fucking stop himself.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

free spirit said:


> Won't someone please think of the other prisoners...
> 
> wonder if he's going to end up on the nonce wing for his own protection?


A week or two in a normal prison followed by Ford...


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He went on to become a cabinet minister. I don't know much about her or what she did for a living, but I'd think there's more to this than simply earnings. Did she not want her husband to be a high-powered politician?


He's a Lib Dem. So it wasn't a realistic expectation no matter what she wanted.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

let us not forget also that speeding is a cunt's crime - thousands of people are killed and seriously injured each year on the roads, many because the selfish fuckers are driving too fast. 19mph over the speed limit (which is what Huhne got caught for) is well out of order.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Not always. For much of the latter part of their marriage she worked for the DTI and other government departments so would've been on the around the same as him.


Because he fucked her career up by becoming an MEP against her wishes.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> He's a Lib Dem. So it wasn't a realistic expectation no matter what she wanted.


Yet, he did.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> briscoe can relax - she might get a title out of this.


I thought she was royally fucked by the whole thing?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> I thought she was royally fucked by the whole thing?


I thought this pair were too.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Sociopath:




			
				huhne said:
			
		

> "I am sorry. I want to say that to family, to friends, to constituents and to colleagues, and more broadly to everybody who cares passionately about the causes I care about, including saving the planet for our children and our grandchildren."


 
Thwarted damn it!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

Ultimately, we the good people of the world are the real losers... wow


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yet, he did.


She's psychic now, is she? OK, burn her, and make sure the flames are just as hot for her as him. Taking your partner's points is every bit as bad as needing someone to take points for you so that you can carry on ignoring the rules of the road, right?


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Sociopath:
> 
> 
> 
> Thwarted damn it!


Heh, yeah. 

I am sure he will return to his mission of saving the planet as soon as he finishes his bird. I expect he'll sell all his mansions and devote the rest of his life to the causes he cares about (like sitting on the Board of BP or something)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> She's psychic now, is she? OK, burn her, and make sure the flames are just as hot for her as him. Taking your partner's points is every bit as bad as needing someone to take points for you so that you can carry on ignoring the rules of the road, right?


You said that he wouldn't as he is a lib-dem - yet he did. Who is claiming to be psychic here?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> He's a Lib Dem. So it wasn't a realistic expectation no matter what she wanted.


Psychic now is she?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> Because he fucked her career up by becoming an MEP against her wishes.


 
He became an MEP in 1999 after they'd been married for 15 years and had 3 kids. She worked for KPMG until 2001, joined the DTI as Chief Economic advisor in 2002, and later became the Director General of the Department for Business.

Wish someone would fuck-up my career like that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 11, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Not nearly enough, how much does this mean he will serve?


 
Three months and change I would think.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You said that he wouldn't as he is a lib-dem, he did. Who is claiming to be psychic here?


Saying that someone married to a Lib Dem MEP and PPC in 2003 was realistically expecting them to become a cabinet minister with future access to post-ministerial kick-backs is a bit of a stretch, no?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> What on earth did Pryce do to deserve the same sentence as Huhne? Being a criminal whilst in possession of a vagina, or was a valid reason given?


 
Well she did the same thing as he did. Not sure where possession or otherwise of a vagina enters into it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> Saying that someone married to a Lib Dem MEP and PPC in 2003 was realistically expecting them to become a cabinet minister with future access to post-ministerial kick-backs is a bit of a stretch, no?


Depens if they are psychic or a good judge of what would happen - if the latter then no. He was within one rigged vote of beinbg deputy prime minister, Youre contention was that this was all impossible and clear as day in 2004. Now, you might lack the required good judgement but don't assume that others do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> She's psychic now, is she? OK, burn her, and make sure the flames are just as hot for her as him. Taking your partner's points is every bit as bad as needing someone to take points for you so that you can carry on ignoring the rules of the road, right?


I don't care too much about the morality of this. But in terms of the _law broken_, it's as bad, no? Neither of them has been sent to jail because he drove too fast. And she knew full well what she was doing when she did it. And they got away with it, no doubt like thousands of others. I can't quite see where any sympathy for her comes from here, except perhaps sympathy for being such a fool.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> He became an MEP in 1999 after they'd been married for 15 years and had 3 kids. She worked for KPMG until 2001, joined the DTI as Chief Economic advisor in 2002, and later became the Director General of the Department for Business.
> 
> Wish someone would fuck-up my career like that.


She had to leave KPMG because of his MEP work. She got some cushty civil service posts instead, but civil servants earn a fraction of the salaries of their private counterparts.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well she did the same thing as he did. Not sure where possession or otherwise of a vagina enters into it.


She did not do the same thing he did. They both perverted the course of justice, but he did the speeding and he asked her to take his points.

Possession of a vagina comes into it because women do (on average) receive harsher jail sentences than men for the same crime, and I cannot see any reason here why her sentence is the same as his (or 90% of his if you take into account his 10% discount). It was not the same crime by any stretch of the imagination and she did not stand to gain by protecting his career.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> She had to leave KPMG because of his MEP work. She got some cushty civil service posts instead, but civil servants earn a fraction of the salaries of their private counterparts.


 
My heart bleeds.

No, honestly ...


----------



## weltweit (Mar 11, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Three months and change I would think.


Not an enormous punishment.

Though some buddy of theirs on the radio was saying they faced a low final quarter of their lives as a result of this, (or words to that effect) perhaps the punishment will linger in reduced opportunities for them when they get out.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> She had to leave KPMG because of his MEP work. She got some cushty civil service posts instead, but civil servants earn a fraction of the salaries of their private counterparts.


But iirc senior civil service pensions are quite generous.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> Possession of a vagina comes into it because women do (on average) receive harsher jail sentences than men for the same crime,


 
The second part may be true but it doesn't make the first part come true


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> ...It was not the same crime by any stretch of the imagination and she did not stand to gain by protecting his career.


That has nothing to do with sentencing.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

weltweit said:


> But iirc senior civil service pensions are quite generous.


 

Please leave the discusion to the grown ups


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> My heart bleeds.
> 
> No, honestly ...


I don't feel sorry for her in the slightest. It's just fucking ridiculous to claim that a senior exec at KPMG gains anything financially by having a partner in politics, which is what you did claim.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Please leave the discusion to the grown ups


 
At least I can spell!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> she did not stand to gain by protecting his career.


Really?

It was the same crime, btw. They were done for perverting the course of justice, which they both did.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> She did not do the same thing he did. They both perverted the course of justice, but he did the speeding and he asked her to take his points.


 
AND SHE DID.

Then lied about it right to the end.

"Possession of a vagina" only comes into it because you want to frame every fucking issue imaginable in terms of gender politics. No reasonable person could seriously argue that she shouldn't be equally punished here.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> She had to leave KPMG because of his MEP work. She got some cushty civil service posts instead, but civil servants earn a fraction of the salaries of their private counterparts.


she will have been on about £150k as a top civil servant - plus she would have got extra for her specialism as an economist - so still in the top few per cent of earners in the entire country


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> she will have been on about £150k as a top civil servant - plus she would have got extra for her specialism as an economist - so still in the top few per cent of earners in the entire country


Top 1 percent.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The second part may be true but it doesn't make the first part come true


That's why there was an "or" in my question. I want to know why agreeing to be punished for speeding when she did not speed is worse than speeding and then pressuring someone else into taking the punishment because you are such a habitual law-breaker you will otherwise lose your licence.

I make it quite a lot more than 10% difference in sentence there; accomplices in murder don't routinely receive the same sentence, so why did she get given more or less exactly as harsh a punishment?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

weltweit said:


> At least I can spell!


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> It's just fucking ridiculous to claim that a senior exec at KPMG gains anything financially by having a partner in politics ....


 
You _must_ be fucking joking!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

I believe the court rejected the idea that she was pressured.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

All those poor politicians, scraping by on their meagre salaries. No connections. No opportunities to make easy money at all.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Top 1 percent.


yeah...which is why it made me laugh when her mate was on the radio claiming the sentence was far too harsh, and that it was doubly awful because she'd had to leave her well remunerated job in the finance industry to devote her life to the 'public cause' on poverty wages


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> She did not do the same thing he did. They both perverted the course of justice, but he did the speeding and he asked her to take his points.


 
But it's the preversion of justice they sent him down for, the penalty for the speeding would've just been a lost licence and a fine. Without her co-operation there could have been no perversion of justice, makes perfect sense to hold her equally accountable.

Not that the idea of quantifying someone's guilt and then somehow converting that into months of jail time in order to arrive at a thing called 'justice' is a concept that makes a great deal of sense to me. Like others have said, they'll suffer much less in prison than many others do and will have better lives when they get out than most ex-cons could dream of. The time spent inside is irrelevant, their punishment will be less of a punishment than you or I would get for the same thing, even though Huhne was a senior public official who should if anything be held more accountable and be punished more harshly than ordinary folk.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> I make it quite a lot more than 10% difference in sentence there;


 
You might, a legal professional didn't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> yeah...which is why it made me laugh when her mate was on the radio claiming the sentence was far too harsh, and that it was doubly awful because she'd had to leave her well remunerated job in the finance industry to devote her life to the 'public cause' on poverty wages


It shows contempt for other people, tbh. She wasn't just any old civil servant. She was right at the top of the pole.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> she will have been on about £150k as a top civil servant - plus she would have got extra for her specialism as an economist - so still in the top few per cent of earners in the entire country


And she'd have been on at least twice as much as KPMG, probably a great deal more depending on which particular type of rich cunt she was specialising in.

This has nothing to do with whether senior civil servants get a decent wedge (they do).


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> You might, a legal professional didn't.


I know. Hence my question, given that we know that women generally receive harsher sentences for the same offence as men do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> And she'd have been on at least twice as much as KPMG, probably a great deal more depending on which particular type of rich cunt she was specialising in.
> 
> This has nothing to do with whether senior civil servants get a decent wedge (they do).


Nothing to do with wanting to be at the heart of government, then? Where do we have this information from about how she made such sacrifices for him, anyway? Is it from her?


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Yes. The obviously lying bitch.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> Yes. The obviously lying bitch.


Yes, that is what she was convicted of doing.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Totally fucked - all this _after_ Hunhes election (in fact, she made it one of the keys _to her own defence_ that she had nothing to gain from taking the action that she did it though marital coercion, not that she did it because he might suffer setbacks in her career - did anyone actually bother to read her letters to Oakeshott?):



> Vicky Pryce was appointed Senior Managing Director of FTI Consulting, Inc. in September 2010. Prior to that Ms Pryce served as Director General, Economics and Chief Economic Adviser at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).  She was also Joint Head of the UK Government Economic Service between 2007 and 2010.
> 
> Throughout her extensive career, Vicky has served in the role of partner and Chief or Corporate Economist at several organizations, including London Economics, KPMG, ESSO Europe and Williams & Glyn’s Bank (later RBS). She was also instrumental in the creation of the GoodCorporation, a company formed to promote Corporate Social Responsibility. Ms. Pryce serves as a Member of Advisory Board of the British-American Business Council and on the Advisory Board for the Centre for International Business and Management (CIBAM) at the Judge Institute at Cambridge University.
> 
> She is a Fellow of the Society of Business Economists, a Fellow at the RSA where she used to be on the board of Trustees and is also a Freeman and Liveryman at the City of London. In 2010 she became the first Female Master of the Worshipful Company of Management Consultants. She is a Visiting Fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford, Visiting Professor in the School of Economics and Finance at Queen Mary, Adjunct Professor at Imperial College Business School and sits on the Council of the London School of Economics.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> Yes. The obviously lying bitch.


 
She is legally recorded as such.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> I know. Hence my question, given that we know that women generally receive harsher sentences for the same offence as men do.


 
Which we have no evidence of happening in this case as people have already pointed out - Huhne would have got more but got 10% knocked off for pleading guilty - all you can go on is a shaky opinion that it should have been a greater difference in her favour based on more opinions rather than the actual legal position of them both committing the same crime.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

To become a world-renowned economist, would one not have to spend some time advising government at the highest level? Must be loads of insanely ambitious people who take a cut in salary to spend time doing high-prestige stuff.

Peerage, anyone?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To become a world-renowned economist, would one not have to spend some time advising government at the highest level? Must be loads of insanely ambitious people who take a cut in salary to spend time doing high-prestige stuff.
> 
> Peerage, anyone?


 
I'm not convinced it's a peerage more the fact that it's worth taking a pay cut while still remaining within a certain pay band (the top 1% for example) if its an investment in your future and could lead to even more high profile and well paid work - people do that sort of thing even at the lower end of the socio-economic scale.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

Page 7 of her letters to Oakeshott.

Precis:



> “Facts from public sources should be easy to come by, dodgy investments in mining companies etc.”
> 
> Pryce said Huhne received a six-figure pay off from a company called Fitch and added: “He was just a journalist or an MEP or MP whilst I was earning consistently considerably more and spending it all on the family.
> 
> "His supposed wealth was built mainly because he could rely on me to earn, and an injection of funds from his father through cheap shares which were sold for a huge multiple when his father’s company floated.”


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To become a world-renowned economist, would one not have to spend some time advising government at the highest level? Must be loads of insanely ambitious people who take a cut in salary to spend time doing high-prestige stuff.
> 
> Peerage, anyone?


She did. Not that she was world renowned. Just another hack arguing for the removal of barriers to entrepreneurship and so on.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 11, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't care too much about the morality of this. But in terms of the _law broken_, it's as bad, no? Neither of them has been sent to jail because he drove too fast. And she knew full well what she was doing when she did it. And they got away with it, no doubt like thousands of others. I can't quite see where any sympathy for her comes from here, except perhaps sympathy for being such a fool.


 
That sums it up for me ymu


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2013)

It's frankly insulting to equate the woman's sentence with some sort of feminist rights thing tbh. I really do not think the fact she got 8 months has anything remotely to do with the fact that she was a woman, it's because she was convicted of lying. If it was his mate or a bloke he met in the pub who agreed to cover for the fact he got a speeding ticket then i doubt the sentencing would be much different.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

The conspiracy aspect makes any offence more serious. It is no longer a spur of the moment event but becomes a clearly planned collaboration. In such situations both people should have talked the other out of it- the fact they didn't means they are both culpable.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, that is what she was convicted of doing.


Not convicted, no. Sentenced, possibly. Hence the concern:



> Although he said Huhne was "somewhat - but not greatly, in my view - more culpable" than his ex-wife, the judge said Pryce had shown an "implacable" desire for revenge following the end of her marriage, adding that her not guilty plea had revealed a "controlling, manipulative and devious side to your character".
> 
> She had, he went on, "sought to manipulate and control the press" so as to achieve her "dual objective" of bringing down Huhne and not implicating herself.


She wasn't on trial for wanting revenge on her ex-husband or for trying to bring him down without implicating herself. He is presenting these as reasons for a harsh sentence. I am questioning whether that is appropriate. The fact that women get harsher sentences on average than men who are convicted of the same crime does not allow us to pinpoint cases where this has definitely happened (hence the difficulty in reigning in judges with sentencing guidelines alone), but it is certainly not unreasonable for me to question whether this is an example of that happening when the similarity in sentence appears to be based entirely on the judge's opinion of her motivation.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> ......
> She wasn't on trial for wanting revenge on her ex-husband or for trying to bring him down without implicating herself. He is presenting these as reasons for a harsh sentence. I am questioning whether that is appropriate. The fact that women get harsher sentences on average than men who are convicted of the same crime does not allow us to pinpoint cases where this has definitely happened (hence the difficulty in reigning in judges with sentencing guidelines alone), but it is certainly not unreasonable for me to question whether this is an example of that happening when the similarity in sentence appears to be based entirely on the judge's opinion of her motivation.


I agree, she was not on trial for trying to bring Huhne down, I don't think the judge should have mentioned that in his summing up. Perhaps he may inadvertently have given her grounds to appeal.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> She wasn't on trial for wanting revenge on her ex-husband or for trying to bring him down without implicating herself.


Such things as contrition and recognising that you've done wrong are taken into account in sentencing. That she was trying to get him done for something she was also guilty of does not show her in a good light at all in that regard. Did the judge think she was trying to use the courts to take her revenge on him? Well, that's exactly what she was trying to do. I'm not so surprised he took a dim view of that, given that the charge itself was, from his point of view, concerned with contempt of the judicial system.

It's quite normal to take motivation into account in sentencing, btw.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 11, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I agree, she was not on trial for trying to bring Huhne down, I don't think the judge should have mentioned that in his summing up. Perhaps he may inadvertently have given her grounds to appeal.


 
AHA !!!


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

I think he probably has, yes.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 11, 2013)

two sheds said:


> AHA !!!


What? did I spell something wrong or somat


----------



## two sheds (Mar 11, 2013)

No I only just escaped making a fool of myself when I predicted that last time


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> I think he probably has, yes.


I don't think so. He was considering her motivation when coming up with a sentence.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> I think he probably has, yes.


 
But it was a significant element of the judge's summing up; highlighting the reason for the conspiracy between them to dissolve.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Such things as contrition and recognising that you've done wrong are taken into account in sentencing. That she was trying to get him done for something she was also guilty of does not show her in a good light at all in that regard. Did the judge think she was trying to use the courts to take her revenge on him? Well, that's exactly what she was trying to do. I'm not so surprised he took a dim view of that, given that the charge itself was, from his point of view, concerned with contempt of the judicial system.
> 
> It's quite normal to take motivation into account in sentencing, btw.


I know it is quite normal to take motivation into account in sentencing. That's what I've been arguing for pages whilst people tell me she obviously did it for his money. 

I'm wondering how _his_ motivation and behaviour were taken into account such that they received essentially identical sentences (his being < 9 months before the 10% discount).


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> ... whether this is an example of that happening when the similarity in sentence appears to be based entirely on the judge's opinion of her motivation.


 
It's not based entirely on his opinion of her motivation. It's based on the fact that she, like he, perverted the course of justice. Motivation is always considered during sentencing.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 11, 2013)

thanks for the link to the letters butchers, fascinating stuff. Oakeshott offering to take VP for a 4 day break paid for by the Sunday Times to Greece or a 'nice spa' so they could cook up their story etc.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> I know it is quite normal to take motivation into account in sentencing. That's what I've been arguing for pages whilst people tell me she obviously did it for his money.


 
Eh?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> I know it is quite normal to take motivation into account in sentencing. That's what I've been arguing for pages whilst people tell me she obviously did it for his money.
> 
> I'm wondering how _his_ motivation and behaviour were taken into account such that they received essentially identical sentences (his being < 9 months before the 10% discount).


Hang on, you don't think it proper for the judge to take into account the fact that they both committed the same crime and she tried to get him sent down for it while avoiding being prosecuted herself?

Sorry, but now that she's been convicted, she's in the worst possible position wrt sentencing. There is little mitigation.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> thanks for the link to the letters butchers, fascinating stuff. Oakeshott offering to take VP for a 4 day break paid for by the Sunday Times to Greece or a 'nice spa' so they could cook up their story etc.


 
Yep, and the email thread title of "my grand plan" is a bit of a giveaway...





You can almost see where she has cooked up the defence with her pal briscoe. Of course, that's all to pan out yet.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

brogdale said:


> But it was a significant element of the judge's summing up; highlighting the reason for the conspiracy between them to dissolve.


Yes. And Huhne's attempt to evade punishment for persistent speeding, his allowing someone to be punished in his place, his lying for months about it and willingness to allow the person who had already been punished for his crime to be punished again for it ... was that a significant element?

I am not arguing that her sentence was too harsh. I am arguing that whatever her sentence I see no reason for him not to get a much harsher one.


----------



## cdg (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> That's why there was an "or" in my question. I want to know why agreeing to be punished for speeding when she did not speed is worse than speeding and then pressuring someone else into taking the punishment because you are such a habitual law-breaker you will otherwise lose your licence.
> 
> I make it quite a lot more than 10% difference in sentence there; accomplices in murder don't routinely receive the same sentence, so why did she get given more or less exactly as harsh a punishment?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 11, 2013)

he should have got a much harsher sentence, it was reduced because of guilty plea tho. still a joke


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> Yes. And Huhne's attempt to evade punishment for persistent speeding, his allowing someone to be punished in his place, his lying for months about it and willingness to allow the person who had already been punished for his crime to be punished again for it ... was that a significant element?
> 
> I am not arguing that her sentence was too harsh. I am arguing that whatever her sentence I see no reason for him not to get a much harsher one.


 
But it was proven to be_ their_ conspiracy to do all that.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

A conspiracy from which only he benefited. Motivation is taken into account, you see.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> I am arguing that whatever her sentence I see no reason for him not to get a much harsher one.


 
He pleaded guilty before going to trial


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> A conspiracy from which only he benefited.


Says who? You're back to repeating Pryce's own version of events as if it were the truth.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> A conspiracy from which only he benefited. Motivation is taken into account, you see.


 
The judge thought otherwise; he suggested that Huhne's ban would have inconvenienced both of them.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 11, 2013)

To be fair I was expecting/ hoping for  18 months for him and eight for her.


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 11, 2013)

Teaboy said:


> Seems to be consistent with other sentencing for the same thing. Maybe a month or two longer because of his position.


This


----------



## cdg (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> That's why there was an "or" in my question. I want to know why agreeing to be punished for speeding when she did not speed is worse than speeding and then pressuring someone else into taking the punishment because you are such a habitual law-breaker you will otherwise lose your licence.
> 
> I make it quite a lot more than 10% difference in sentence there; accomplices in murder don't routinely receive the same sentence, so why did she get given more or less exactly as harsh a punishment?


 
She didn't agree to be punished for something she hadn't done, she conspired to help another evade punishment. She's complicit, not a victim.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> Yes. And Huhne's attempt to evade punishment for persistent speeding, his allowing someone to be punished in his place, his lying for months about it and willingness to allow the person who had already been punished for his crime to be punished again for it ... was that a significant element?


 
Yes.

All of the above, compared with her own deceit, attempt to punish him through the justice system and get away with it herself, then lie about it, then insist on going not guilty right to the end.

In fact, looking at it like that perhaps _she_ should have got longer.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> He pleaded guilty before going to trial


And got 3.5 weeks knocked off his sentence for it.

I was expecting 3 months for her and 9 for him. I am not aware of anyone who predicted that the sentences would be so similar. Were you?


----------



## cdg (Mar 11, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hang on, you don't think it proper for the judge to take into account the fact that they both committed the same crime and she tried to get him sent down for it while avoiding being prosecuted herself?


 
That's a crime in itself surely?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> And got 3.5 weeks knocked off his sentence for it.
> 
> I was expecting 3 months for her and 9 for him. I am not aware of anyone who predicted that the sentences would be so similar. Were you?


I did. I expected broadly the same sentence. I thought it would be a bit shorter than 8 months, perhaps.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> I am not aware of anyone who predicted that the sentences would be so similar.


 
Yes. Me.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> And got 3.5 weeks knocked off his sentence for it.
> 
> I was expecting 3 months for her and 9 for him. I am not aware of anyone who predicted that the sentences would be so similar. Were you?


 
I hoped he would get more but didn't predict anything - I know enough about criminal law to know that I don't know much about it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> And got 3.5 weeks knocked off his sentence for it.
> 
> I was expecting 3 months for her and 9 for him. I am not aware of anyone who predicted that the sentences would be so similar. Were you?


Me. I said identical or her slightly more.


----------



## ymu (Mar 11, 2013)

Fair dos.

This is causing a small Twitter storm:



> The Sunday Times jails its source
> 
> The reader has to stare hard at her words to realise that Pryce was Oakeshott’s source, and that Oakeshott and her editor John Witherow had handed her over to the police. The eight-month prison sentence Mr Justice Sweeney gave Pryce today followed. Of course it did. Journalists once knew that if you betrayed a source they could end up on the dole, or in prison or, in the most severe circumstances, dead.
> 
> ...


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2013)

cdg said:


> That's a crime in itself surely?


 
Not if the crime she reported actually took place. As it stands she's just a nasty piece of work who's snidey little plan has bitten her firmly in the arse.

Fuck her.


----------



## DexterTCN (Mar 11, 2013)

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorn'd.

Holloway does.


----------



## Lixer (Mar 11, 2013)

They must be shitting themselves right now. 
Croissants for brekkie in Wandsworth.... Ekk!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2013)

One more point about the summing up. He was passing judgement on her character. It's what judges do when they sum up, and is often quite a sickening thing to see them do, the presumptuous, pompous fuckers. But sickening or not, it's no grounds for appeal. Convicted liar was told she's manipulative. Nope, that's not going to get her very far on appeal, not when a paper trail of manipulative emails is there for all to see.


----------



## cdg (Mar 11, 2013)

Huhne has, on his own account, spent some time in a cell abroad. For a driving offence


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 11, 2013)

Silly mare.

Last thing he said to her before he left the marriage, "Don't talk to the newspapers."

Bet that phrase is running through her head as she sobs herself to sleep tonight.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 11, 2013)

ymu said:


> And got 3.5 weeks knocked off his sentence for it.
> 
> I was expecting 3 months for her and 9 for him. I am not aware of anyone who predicted that the sentences would be so similar. Were you?


 
of course, high profile case like this I didnt see how it could be anything else - two people, same crime, fact he asked her to do it doesnt mean anything, try pulling that excuse on a shop lifting charge or a murder for that matter


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

kenny g said:


> His son is one of the heroes in this.


 
I bet he's busy texting his dad a fuck-off big cunting-off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 11, 2013)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Silly mare.
> 
> Last thing he said to her before he left the marriage, "Don't talk to the newspapers."
> 
> Bet that phrase is running through her head as she sobs herself to sleep tonight.


 
He was hardly saying it for her benefit though, was he?


----------



## Nylock (Mar 11, 2013)

...do they ever?


----------



## weltweit (Mar 11, 2013)

Jeffrey Archer, in Wayland, a Category C Prison for 67 days, did all sorts of wheeler dealing like getting his cell decorated, his washing done weekly, comissioning drawings of inmates and writing about them in his diary, negotiating the supply of a gem stone from Columbia for £10k and trying to arrange the purchase of a work of art by Boteros for significantly more. All this mainly funded by trading £2.00 phonecards and payments arranged with outside accomplices. He was quite the wheeler dealer.

I wonder how Huhne will cope.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 12, 2013)

Huhne has been taken to Wandsworth Prison (a Category B prison and the site of 135 executions, between 1878 and 1961) where he will be searched and fingerprinted.

Vicky Pryce is apparently likely to go to HMP Holloway.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...of-overcrowded-wandsworth-prison-8530169.html


----------



## weltweit (Mar 12, 2013)

What the Judge said: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/11/chris-huhne-vicky-pryce-what-the-judge-said


----------



## Firky (Mar 12, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Huhne has been taken to Wandsworth Prison (a Category B prison and the site of 135 executions, between 1878 and 1961) where he will be searched and fingerprinted.


 
It is where Lord Hawhaw was executed and Derek 'Let Him Have It' Bentley. Took the state nearly 50 years to admit they got that one wrong and say sorry.


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 12, 2013)

I was hoping they would put him on a chain gang.Imagine she will go to holloway for a period of time


----------



## mrs quoad (Mar 12, 2013)

R4 just opened with the lines 'As Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce wake up to their first morning in prison...'

Which various audiences may receive with various kinds of response!


----------



## marty21 (Mar 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> I bet he's busy texting his dad a fuck-off big cunting-off.


which he will read when he gets out


----------



## Athos (Mar 12, 2013)

ymu said:
			
		

> A conspiracy from which only he benefited. Motivation is taken into account, you see.



She planned to benefit from it too. By using the crime which she had conspired to commit to damage her husband.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 12, 2013)

Radios 4 and 5 yesterday were at their middle-class worst, reviling in horror at the thought of one of their own being in _prison_.  It was like they were telling a horror story and this was the big nasty twist.  Shock porn.  They kept getting "real ex-prisoners" on to tell exactly what would be happening to them _now_, and commenting about how horrible it must be for good clean middle-class people like them.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 12, 2013)

I really do think some of these posts about her benefitting from it as much as him are stretching it/a bit contrived in order make a case against ymu. My _guesstimate_ is he did put pressure on her, probably quite mundane pressure and way short of 'marital coercion'.  If anything she said rings true it was the scene where he opened the form and gave her the 'you've got to sign it' speech.  Yes, he would have been putting pressure on her, but she didn't need to cave in to it.  [all speculation, yes - and again, before anyone suggests this was rejected by the court, I'm not talking about full blown coercion] Following that the game she played with the media was both manipulative and stupid.  I'm delighted she got 8 months, though I'd like to have seen him get more.  Most of all though a neo-liberal power couple getting time inside is good. Let's not forget to celebrate.


----------



## Lixer (Mar 12, 2013)

I loved Cameron's speech, salivating over the fact no one is above the law. Ok sure, we believe you...


----------



## weltweit (Mar 12, 2013)

Lixer said:


> I loved Cameron's speech, salivating over the fact no one is above the law. Ok sure, we believe you...


 
Chris Huhne, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine, Eric Illsley, Margaret Moran, Jonathan Aitken, Jeffrey Archer, John Stonehouse, Horatio Bottomley.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 12, 2013)

Lixer said:


> I loved Cameron's speech, salivating over the fact no one is above the law. Ok sure, we believe you...


His septum says otherwise.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2013)

marty21 said:


> which he will read when he gets out


 
Yep.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Huhne has been taken to Wandsworth Prison (a Category B prison and the site of 135 executions, between 1878 and 1961) where he will be searched and fingerprinted.
> 
> Vicky Pryce is apparently likely to go to HMP Holloway.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...of-overcrowded-wandsworth-prison-8530169.html


 
He's probably only at the Big W Ranch for induction and dispersal, though, which means 2-3 nights in the induction cells, and nary a glimpse of the prison and inmates in their full glory. Then he'll be off to somewhere more salubrious.


----------



## Lixer (Mar 12, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Chris Huhne, Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine, Eric Illsley, Margaret Moran, Jonathan Aitken, Jeffrey Archer, John Stonehouse, Horatio Bottomley.



Just a handful


----------



## fakeplasticgirl (Mar 12, 2013)

Marvellous


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2013)

Firky said:


> It is where Lord Hawhaw was executed and Derek 'Let Him Have It' Bentley. Took the state nearly 50 years to admit they got that one wrong and say sorry.


 
Members of Bentley's family turned up every single year after his execution at the prison gates with a wreath. I saw it a couple of times, really touching.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> I was hoping they would put him on a chain gang.Imagine she will go to holloway for a period of time


 
If she behaves, somewhere between 108-132 days, IIRC.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> If she behaves, somewhere between 108-132 days, IIRC.


 Proof that I'm not very good at living in the moment and enjoying the simple pleasures of the rich being incarcerated: I'm seeing her first statement on release being the 'I'd like to spend time with my family, ask the media to respect our privacy' thing.  Him: 'me, me, me... positive contribution.... gisajob.... me, me,me... learned valuable lessons...'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 12, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Proof that I'm not very good at living in the moment and enjoying the simple pleasures of the rich being incarcerated: I'm seeing her first statement on release being the 'I'd like to spend time with my family, ask the media to respect our privacy' thing. Him: 'me, me, me... positive contribution.... gisajob.... me, me,me... learned valuable lessons...'.


 
Same here, with the additional thought that from him there'll be an apology to his children and to his party, but it'll be a tactical apology, nothing heartfelt.
Because, as you say, he's all about "me me me".


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 12, 2013)

I still can't believe all those people conspired to stop him saving the planet - what a disgrace!


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's probably only at the Big W Ranch for induction and dispersal, though, which means 2-3 nights in the induction cells, and nary a glimpse of the prison and inmates in their full glory. Then he'll be off to somewhere more salubrious.


 

Cat D easy-rider warehouse. Maybe he will grow his hair out and start smoking weed and recant his toryism. Maybe.


----------



## marty21 (Mar 12, 2013)

I pass Holloway Prison every day on the bus - big walls!


----------



## Wilf (Mar 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I still can't believe all those people conspired to stop him saving the planet - what a disgrace!


 Gaia is the real loser here.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 12, 2013)

marty21 said:


> I pass Holloway Prison every day on the bus - big walls!


 She'll be working out the marginal utility of paying a consultant to say she's got Guinness syndrome Vs bribing a screw to let her hide in the laundry basket.


----------



## ibilly99 (Mar 12, 2013)




----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Looks like McShane will end up visiting prison, after all?


Ah, just realised what you meant now. Well spotted.


----------



## Wilf (Mar 14, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Ah, just realised what you meant now. Well spotted.


 She does seem to be attracted to the Parliamentary 'bad boys'. From memory, wasn't McShane the feller who claimed his garage was an office - and went in for a spot of intern bullying?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2013)

Wilf said:


> She does seem to be attracted to the Parliamentary 'bad boys'. From memory, wasn't McShane the feller who claimed his garage was an office - and went in for a spot of intern bullying?


That's the feller. I see a tory MP has written to request harsher sentences - any request has to be looked at (or the motions of looking at it have to be gone through at least).


----------



## Frances Lengel (Mar 14, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> It's frankly insulting to equate the woman's sentence with some sort of feminist rights thing tbh. I really do not think the fact she got 8 months has anything remotely to do with the fact that she was a woman, it's because she was convicted of lying. *If it was his mate* or a bloke he met in the pub who agreed to cover for the fact he got a speeding ticket then i doubt the sentencing would be much different.


 
Ah now that stretches credulity a bit too far - _He _ won't have a mate_._


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 7, 2013)

Huhne is finding prison simply fascinating. Must have found his very own Fletcher. 



> Chris Huhne, the disgraced former energy and climate change secretary who has been jailed for perverting the course of justice, is finding imprisonment fascinating, according to Jonathan Aitken.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/07/chris-huhne-prison-jonathan-aitken


----------



## weltweit (Apr 7, 2013)

Finding it fascinating does not sound like he has exactly atoned for his guilt.


----------



## Badgers (Apr 22, 2013)

She will be out on the 12th of May then? Not that long inside for perverting the course of justice.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2013)

Both out on tag next month. Costs now under consideration, next week expected.


----------



## Badgers (Apr 22, 2013)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Both out on tag next month. Costs now under consideration, next week expected.



Both out? Blimey, that is justice eh? I read about the costs


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 22, 2013)

Badgers said:


> Both out? Blimey, that is justice eh? I read about the costs


I may be getting ahead of myself but that's what i expect - has to be really.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2013)

that 7-7 curfew will truly show that lady justice is not mocked


----------



## Badgers (Apr 22, 2013)

DotCommunist said:
			
		

> that 7-7 curfew will truly show that lady justice is not mocked



For two whole months eh?


----------



## shagnasty (May 12, 2013)

Huhne to be released early ,i know eight weeks doesn't seem much but it fucked him as a politician ,also lost out big time with his relationship with his son

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...perverting-the-course-of-justice-8612974.html


----------



## weltweit (May 12, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> Huhne to be released early ,i know eight weeks doesn't seem much but it fucked him as a politician ,also lost out big time with his relationship with his son
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...perverting-the-course-of-justice-8612974.html


 
So an 8 month sentence means you are let out after just 8 weeks!
That seems overly lenient to me.


----------



## Nylock (May 13, 2013)

well, well, 8 weeks of an 8 month sentence served in a cushy open prison and being let out early on a tag... wow, that was totally unexpected


----------



## weltweit (May 13, 2013)

Nylock said:


> well, well, 8 weeks of an 8 month sentence served in a cushy open prison and being let out early on a tag... wow, that was totally unexpected


ridiculous.
(not your post, his time in gaol)


----------



## JimW (May 13, 2013)

If he was really going to pay his debt to society he wouldn't be out before the next millennium.


----------



## UhOhSeven (May 13, 2013)

Eight WEEKS?

He didn't even serve time on remand, ffs.

I presume one of our watchdogs in the media will ask how this came about.

<hollow laugh>


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 13, 2013)

both released early - FFS! 

What's the point of giving eight month sentences when they only serve two months?

And in cushy open prisons. Pryce has apparently been writing a book whilst inside (wandering around with her moleskin notebook at all times) and getting involved in prision activities. It just sounds like an extended stay at Centre Parcs.


----------



## killer b (May 13, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> It just sounds like an extended stay at Centre Parcs.


----------



## barney_pig (May 13, 2013)

Brixton Hatter said:


> both released early - FFS!
> 
> . Pryce has apparently been .... getting involved in prision activities. It just sounds like an extended stay at Centre Parcs.


Getting some macramé and basket weaving done I assume, rather than shivving a grass in the showers


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 13, 2013)

Any idea _why_ they get out early?

Couldn't see any reasons given in the reports I've read. According to the Graun:




> For sentences under a year, an offender is automatically released after serving half of their sentence.
> Prisoners serving sentences of between three months and four years, with certain exceptions for violent and sexual offenders, may also be eligible for release on a home detention curfew.



Lucky bastards - less than 65 days inside. They will prob have to pay significant costs - Huhne up to £100k and Pryce up to £50k - but given they are rich as fuck already, this will barely dent their finances. Just remortgage one of their many properties...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 13, 2013)

Is this a new thing, people paying for the prosecution costs? Doesn't seem right to me - you have your day in court, but have to pay for it if you lose.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2013)

No it's not new, it just doesn't apply in every single case. It applies where the defendants have played silly buggers by forcing extra and expensive work onto the CPS (not the police and their investigation i think) based on what they know is a load of bollocks - such as here.


----------



## Tankus (May 13, 2013)

25% of sentence served of lower grade crimes is now the norm ......its not just them

Maybe sentencing should come under the retail sales act........because they are knowingly miss sold


----------



## Brixton Hatter (May 13, 2013)

Huhne went in jail in a suit....and came out in a Harrington


----------



## ibilly99 (May 14, 2013)




----------



## JHE (Aug 11, 2013)

Ex-cons very often have a terrible time in the labour market.  It's one reason so many of them return to crime and then to prison.  

So perhaps I should find it heart-warming to read of an ex-con who has managed to get a respectable job to earn an honest crust, but a slimy greedy smug unscrupulous Lib-Dem liar jumping on the gravy train doesn't particularly cheer me up.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chris-huhne-lands-100000-year-2147770


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2013)

Interesting, he had dealings with this company when he was a minster, and he used to be minister for energy and this is an energy company, and this is now £100,000 pa for two days a week. And he is a convicted liar! Snouts in the trough!! Makes me pissed off.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 11, 2013)

He doesn't even need the money.


----------



## JHE (Aug 11, 2013)

gentlegreen said:


> He doesn't even need the money.


 

Perhaps he just got the job, in a grumpy way, to keep his probation officer happy.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2013)

knew it would happen but doesn't it make you fucking sick? 100k a year?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> knew it would happen but doesn't it make you fucking sick? 100k a year?


For two days a week!!!

I have to admit a bit of jealousy, I would love to have the freedoms which a large salary gives you.


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 11, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> knew it would happen but doesn't it make you fucking sick? 100k a year?


 
This and the Eddie Shah story have proper pissed me off today. Pair of cunts.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 12, 2013)

Said it before and I'll say it again, come the revolution and I'm in charge, invest in bricks. Cos there's gonna be one fucking huge wall being built to line these cunts up against.


----------



## Santino (Aug 12, 2013)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Said it before and I'll say it again, come the revolution and I'm in charge, invest in bricks. Cos there's gonna be one fucking huge wall being built to line these cunts up against.


Won't the second batch of people up against the wall be the people who profiteered from the wall-building boom though?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2013)

weltweit said:


> For two days a week!!!
> 
> I have to admit a bit of jealousy, I would love to have the freedoms which a large salary gives you.


 
A grand a day for his political connections.  Pretty disgusting.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 12, 2013)

weltweit said:


> For two days a week!!!
> 
> I have to admit a bit of jealousy, I would love to have the freedoms which a large salary gives you.


 

clearly its not the salary which got him his early freedom here but rather his OBN connects

didn't sherridan do everyday of his sentence for lying in court?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 12, 2013)

Santino said:


> Won't the second batch of people up against the wall be the people who profiteered from the wall-building boom though?


 
No, because they will spend their windfalls on sound systems and tekno and drugs to give away at the raves they put on all over the land. The UK will be banging once I'm in the chair.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> A grand a day for his political connections. Pretty disgusting.


 
Yes, snouts in the trough definitely.



DotCommunist said:


> clearly its not the salary which got him his early freedom here but rather his OBN connects
> 
> didn't sherridan do everyday of his sentence for lying in court?


 
Did he, wonder why? usually don't people only serve half of their sentence?


----------



## JHE (Aug 12, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Yes, snouts in the trough definitely.
> 
> 
> 
> Did he, wonder why? usually don't people only serve half of their sentence?


 

...or less.  Big Tommy Liar served about a third of his three-year sentence.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 9, 2013)

He's out and whining on Today prog about awful Murdoch and their agenda...


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 9, 2013)

"Your unique vantage point to comment on this is that you're a liar"

He's got a colum in the Guardian.


----------



## Sue (Sep 9, 2013)

5t3IIa said:


> He's out and whining on Today prog about awful Murdoch and their agenda...



Just listening to it. He really has no shame (and does he really think anyone cares what he has to say?)

ETA Well the Guardian obviously does... :-(.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 9, 2013)

Sue said:


> Just listening to it. He really has no shame (and does he really think anyone cares what he has to say?)



Poor people break the law, rich people make mistakes and get hounded by the press. It really is Scumbag v Scumbag.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2013)

Pryce:



> In Pryce's capacious black handbag, whose contents were enumerated and bagged pending her transfer to Holloway women's prison, security guards found "in between diaries, packets of tissues, cheque books, loose credit and store cards, letters and newspaper clippings" a grand total of £1,490 in cash, including nearly £100 in coins.



Odd they run a laugh at her piece and _Chris is great_ on the same day.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 7, 2013)

I wonder how much of this is just "solidarity" from Huhne's old muckers at the Cuntian?


----------



## brogdale (May 4, 2014)

Huhne in the guardian


> ....Briscoe lied that she knew about the points swapping in 2003, long before any animus from the divorce.
> 
> That story later caused the Essex police to turn up at Briscoe's door. She panicked and ran off to the gym. They hung around for four hours until she came home, and she felt obliged to give a false witness statement. This was the key evidence that persuaded the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute my wife and me. *I was convinced that Briscoe had made this up, which is why I went on denying guilt and hoping that I could cause the prosecution case to collapse. Nothing encourages a defence like being fitted up with fake evidence.*
> 
> *Although I was guilty,* I justified my denial to myself by saying that it was a relatively minor offence committed by 300,000 other people (according to AA polling), that prosecutions should be based on facts not fantasy, and that we would no longer be able to pursue requests for disclosure about Briscoe's wrongdoing.



christ on a bike


----------



## DaveCinzano (May 4, 2014)

Chris Huhne said:
			
		

> _I was convinced that Briscoe had made this up, which is why I went on denying guilt and hoping that I could cause the prosecution case to collapse. Nothing encourages a defence like being fitted up with fake evidence._



Though not exactly the Stoke Newington Eight, is he?


----------



## Sue (May 4, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Huhne in the guardian
> 
> 
> christ on a bike


 
Was just reading this. FFS, he *still* doesn't get it. And what's the Guardian doing publishing this..?


----------



## Mr Smin (May 4, 2014)

Sue said:


> Was just reading this. FFS, he *still* doesn't get it. And what's the Guardian doing publishing this..?



Or maybe he does get it, but he's lying about what he really thinks.


----------



## Sue (May 4, 2014)

Mr Smin said:


> Or maybe he does get it, but he's lying about what he really thinks.


 
Poor, poor Chris Huhne, the true victim in all this.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 4, 2014)

Let's hope they wanted him to hoist himself on his own petard.


----------



## butchersapron (May 4, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> Let's hope they wanted him to hoist himself on his own petard.


Nah, they've given him a prominent public platform for weeks now. He is, after all -  as is Pryvce - one of their own.


----------



## brogdale (May 4, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Nah, they've given him a prominent public platform for weeks now. He is, after all -  as is Pryvce - one of their own.


 kin and clickbait; win, win.


----------



## agricola (May 4, 2014)

If they can fit up Chris Huhne just because he was guilty, just imagine what they could do to some poor kid from Brixton who gets his wife to take speeding points that he earned rushing back from his hundred thousand pound a year jolly in Brussels and Strasbourg.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 4, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Huhne in the guardian
> 
> 
> christ on a bike



No Chris in a car


----------



## Wilf (May 6, 2014)

It's like carbon trading, but in cars.


----------



## Wilf (May 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Huhne in the guardian
> 
> 
> christ on a bike


As proof that I can do deferred gratification I've put that little gem aside as a treat.  It will either be chocolate cake or reading that tonight, though the former will end up on the screen if I combine it with the latter.  My poor splutter muscles may also take a bashing.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2014)

Ex-minister Chris Huhne ordered to pay £77,750 in legal costs



> Former cabinet minister Chris Huhne has been ordered to pay £77,750 in legal costs relating to his prosecution for passing speeding points to his ex-wife.
> 
> His ex-wife, economist Vicky Pryce, was ordered to pay £49,200 by Mr Justice Sweeney at Southwark Crown Court.
> 
> Huhne had been fighting the claim for more than £100,000 in legal costs following his conviction for perverting the course of justice in 2013.


----------



## weltweit (May 9, 2014)

Huhne is an ex banker isn't he, I don't imagine this will cause him much trouble. I would have preferred something punitive although I know that wasn't the idea behind the award of costs.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 9, 2014)

I seem to recall he owns a shedload of property.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ex-minister Chris Huhne ordered to pay £77,750 in legal costs



As much as this amuses me, I ain't comfortable with people being sent to prison and then being obliged to pay for the trial; next step is to be obliged to pay for board and lodging, as those imprisoned and subsequently exonerated are made to cough up for.


----------



## butchersapron (May 9, 2014)

Yep, agree but he's not paying for the trial though, this is money that the prosecution was forced to fork out on extra investigation due to his lies.


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ex-minister Chris Huhne ordered to pay £77,750 in legal costs



Oh dear, how sad.
Never mind.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 10, 2014)

shame its more or less chump change to him in the scheme of things.

but look at what a remorsless shite he is- even trying to get out of paying the costs of his serial lying.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 11, 2014)

gentlegreen said:


> I seem to recall he owns a shedload of property.


A load of sheds?


----------



## Betsy (May 11, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Ex-minister Chris Huhne ordered to pay £77,750 in legal costs


My heart bleeds for them....not!


----------



## Betsy (Oct 28, 2014)

_*Chris Huhne loses legal costs appeal*

Judges uphold ruling ordering former cabinet minister to pay £77,750 costs from trial over speeding points scandal.
Former cabinet minister Chris Huhne has lost a challenge against an order that he must pay £77,750 costs from his prosecution for passing speeding points to his ex-wife.


Three judges at the court of appeal rejected his case at a hearing in London on Tuesday.


The costs order was made in May by Mr Justice Sweeney at Southwark crown court in London.


Prosecutors claimed more than £100,000 from Huhne, who pleaded guilty last February.


His former wife, the economist Vicky Pryce, who was convicted by a jury, was ordered to pay £49,200._
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/28/chris-huhne-loses-legal-costs-appeal-speeding-points


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2014)

Them points keep getting more and more expensive.


----------

