What a sorry state they have both found themselves in. I have been following the story with interest, shocked by the rapid unwinding of lives, directly as a result of revenge. Vicky Pryce, in her fury at her husband’s affair, went to a newspaper with the story after their marriage broke up. The judge at Southwark Crown Court said Huhne had fallen from a “great height” but any tragedy was their “own fault”.
Huhne, who resigned as an MP after pleading guilty, told Channel 4 News ahead of sentencing that his actions in 2003 had spun into a “massive, devastating set of consequences for family, for career and for everything”.
The judge told the couple today: “To the extent that anything good has come out of this whole process, it is that now, finally, you have both been brought to justice for your joint offence. “Any element of tragedy is entirely your own fault.”
But the thing is, whilst I realise that they have to take the wrap for misdemeanours like everybody else – was it REALLY necessary to send them to jail? Under the circumstances couldn’t they have been found guilty of being temporarily fuckwit idiots as a result of unsound mind during a deeply difficult time in their marriage? It happens you know. Trust me.
What about their son? I know he’s not a toddler, but what will the impact be for him? The public humiliation and his subsequent pain, hurt and embarrassment? How is he going to cope with all of that?
Pryce, a prominent economist, was described as being “controlling, manipulative and devious” by the judge. India Knight tweeted yesterday that she got the impression that Vicky Pryce was a woman “who didn’t have very many girlfriends”. I had to agree with her – girlfriends would have advised against her behaviour I am quite sure.
Asked about the jailing of his former cabinet colleague, Prime Minister David Cameron said: “It’s a reminder that no-one, however high and mighty, is out of the reach of the justice system.” You know what? I don’t think that was the right answer. He could have been more supportive and talked about what a desperately sad personal tragedy it had become for them all.
After a prison sentence will they be more remorseful or feel even more bitter about the way things have turned out? What a ridiculous waste of public money. I’d rather see them picking up litter in parks or counselling other traumatised divorcees than stuck behind bars.
Marianne
March 13, 2013I agree entirely. The disgrace is enough punishment. They haven’t harmed anyone but themselves. I don’t know why people are so puritannical about ‘liars’. Even the best people tell lies sometimes. I value integrity but it’s not possible to get through life withou telling some lies. The only people who never tell lies are those who die in infancy or are mute.
Am I the only one who thinks the points issue, while technically illegal, is incredibly trivial? I wouldn’t admire anyone for swapping points but it doesn’t make them a bad person. Isabel Oakeshott said she had no sympathy for Chris Huhne. He was a liar! Oakeshot,heself, didn’t tell a single lie in her inteview with Andrew Neil. She was just slimy and disingenuous.
It seems to me that the points are irrelevant. It is scary that Vicky Pryce was vengeful enough to try to destroy Huhne just because he has left her for Carina. But I don’t know her. Perhaps she was suffering so much that she couldn’t think straight.
The two juries don’t give outsiders much help in assessing her. The old fashioned Muslims at the firt trial surely had her all wrong in thinking she believed herself to be contractually obliged to submit tto her husband. But you can be victimised without being a brainwashed doormat.
The second jury thought it was she who was controlling and devious. They may well be right but her friends disagree. Most of my sympathy is with Huhne as he was not vindictive or, if he was, he has not displayed it in public.
Family Affairs
March 13, 2013Thanks for your comment – I agree – although have been reading that her friends say she became demented with grief over the affair – I can relate to that to be honest and you can do things that you wouldn’t usually do….Lx
Marianne
March 13, 2013She may well have been demented with grief but good friends would have tried to restrain her, not egg her on to do something self-destructive.We’ve just seen that David Burrowes MP has criticised the sentence for being too lenient. This means that the appeal court will have to look at increasing it! It would be nice to see some compassion instead.
One thing I do think Pryce should not have done was tell the court that Huhne had pressurised her into having one abortion and tried to make her have another. If she had not changed her mind at the last minute, their son Peter would not exist. I don’t know if it’s true -Huhne has denied it- and I can see the tactical purpose of telling the jury that -but won’t the son feel extremely insecure? No wonder he hates his father. It would have been cruel to tell Peter that privately even if it is true. But it’s even worse to tell the world.
It’s really awful that Huhne was constantly texting his son with unonditional love only to be answered with implacable hatred. I think the son would have had big regrets at dropping his father in it in a few years anyway. As it is, how does he feel that his mother’s going to prison too? It’s a perfectly completed tragedy.
The judge said it was their own fault. But they were foolish, not evil. I’m so glad someone else thinks they been treated with unnecessary harshness.I can’t remember who said we should distrust all those with a strong desire to punish, but it’s just about right. It might have been different if they’d murdered someone. But this is ridiculous.
Regards, Marianne
Family Affairs
March 14, 2013Well, I have to agree with you – but what to you think about “m’s” comment? It is true that the very fabric of society needs to be upheld – however, I still think that this sort of thing should be considered on a case by case basis – yes they lied, but it shouldn’t result in prison – the punishment should always fit the crime and should a liar be imprisoned? Can’t their dreadful situation be taken into consideration? If everyone that lied went to prison, they would be very, very full….Lx
'm'
March 13, 2013Marianne – you missed the point – just like many others commentating on this matter. The jailing is nothing to do with points – trivial or otherwise. Huhne lied. He lied initially to the Police, he lied to the Media and he then lied to the Court system – and, over an extended period of time. Perjury,lying under oath, undermines part of the very core of British Justice. Likewise, Pryce (judged by ’12 good men and true’ – another tenet of the British legal system) was found to have lied under oath. The penalty is jail. As soon as anyone can start to ‘get off lightly’ after lying under oath, is when our whole system comes under fire. Jail is the only option available. My own view is that they should also have been massively fined – for the waste of taxpayers money their lying has caused.
Marianne
March 15, 2013Perhaps I’m nit picking ,M, but it seems to me that it is only perjury if you lie on oath in court. Lying to a policeman has been designated perverting the course of justice. But this doesn’t really seem so bad.
Furthermore let’s get real. Do you think policemen don’t routinely lie in court? I would suggest that many do. Defence barristers are paid to defend their clients in court when they know they’re guilty, because the adversarial system wouldn’t work otherwise. It’s like a game. They are not supposed to say ”My client is innocent” in so many words if they know they’re not but they sometimes do. Implying that they are innocent is ok.
Of course Huhne is a liar but all politicians are. If you were completely truthful you’d be unemployed and have no friends and you would remain poor. Don’t get me wrong. I hate lying to people and hardly ever do it but that may be why I’ve never got anywhere. You have to bullshit to get ahead.The story about George Washington and the cherry tree is itself a lie. It’s ridiculous to think of politicians as role models. We know Lloyd George and Aneirin Bevan lied on oath and it’s hardly dented their reputations. We don’t know where to start with Tony Blair, George Bush and Bill Clinton.
I will happily accept that Huhne – and Pryce if she was a willing accomplice – were etremely stupid to lie about this trivial thing. It wasn’t worth the risk. There had been at least one high profile case before in which someone was imprisoned for this very thing. Shortly afterwards, Huhne was banned from driving anyway so he’d achieved nothing. I don’t think he should have done it but mainly because he was being a fool to himself.
Coming to your point about wasting tax payers’ money, the good news is that Huhne and Pryce will probably end up paying all the court costs themselves and I’ve no problem with that. They deserve it and they’ve loads of money. Usually, the loser pays the winner’s costs. In this truly bizarre case, there is no winner and they’ll both pay. It’s been said that it costs the tax payer a hell of a lot to keep someone in jail so we’re just throwing good money after bad there. They’re no danger to the public so I would keep them out of jail and fine them heavily.
I feel we should be honest about our dishonsty. Yes, our politicians are liars.Of course they are. They’re human, not angels. Get over it. There’s nothing we can do about that. It’s quite true that they’ve been treated no more harshly than anyone else but I hate to see anyone go to jail who is not a danger to the public. I’d feel the same whoever it was.
If you dont sympathise,M, that’s fine. But I feel it would be hypocritical of me to condemn someone for being a liar. I’m sure I’m more honest than most people but even I’ve told some lies. Of course I have. We all have. If it had been a wicked and cruel lie that they had told, designed to harm someone, that would have been different.
Some people say that Pryce tried to frame a totally innocent aide called Jo Scott who only escaped involvment because she had no driving licence at the relevant time.If accurate, Pryce may well be undeserving of sympathy. But is it? The papers will say anything.
There’s obviously been a campaign to bring Huhne down as we can see on the ‘Anti-Chris’ website where he is described as ‘an unmitigated cunt’. Another site suggests that the ‘Anti-Chris’ site was run by people in his own family who supported his ex-wife. There was rejoicing on the site when he pleaded guilty but there have been no new entries since Pryce was convicted. They’ve been hoist on their own petard.
I mean no silly pun when I say it’s a Greek tragedy. To the perpetrators of Huhne’s downfall, it didn’t matter how they brought him down or what he had done. Any weapon would have done. You,M, have a different perspective as you are interested in lying and not the human drama. I’ll just say that continuing lying for ages does look like an aggravating factor but once you’ve started, one lie demands another. You have to stick to your story. Of course, he would have done this to keep out of jail. If our sentencing policy was less harsh, he might have come clean eariler.
I don’t think we’re going to convince each other. I think the whole concept of punishment is flawed. It does no good. Of course incarceration is necessary for dangerous individuals. But in this case, we should be looking to recoup taxpayers’ money from the massive bank accounts of Huhne and Pryce in equal shares, not wasting even more on maintaining them in prison.
Family Affairs
March 16, 2013Oooooh I love a good debate x
Marianne
March 17, 2013Well, ‘Family Affairs’, I was feeling a bit guilty about virtually hi-jacking your lovely site, but since you like a debate, I’ll say a few other things. Of course, you and M are right that courts have to have sanctions for people who defy them. For instance, if witnesses didn’t turn up, the court system wouldn’t work at all.
It’s easy to think that perjury is despicable and, no doubt, it often is. But when I was studying law, we were told that in the early 1800s there were over 200 capital offences in this country, most of them extremely trivial and some of which had not even been crimes a few years before.They included appearing on the high road with a sooty face and associating with Gypsies!
Juries would often find clearly guilty people innocent because they did not want blood on their hands. It was known as committing ‘pious perjury’. This ameliorated the harshness of the law and finally made it unworkable which is why we have a more humane system today.
I never thought I’d say this but I’m beginning to think that perjury has its uses. It can be a valuable thing.Morality is not simple and life is not simple. They are complicated.
I’m not saying that Huhne had noble motives in committing it but he was not without his merits. My partner is convinced that big business particularly oil companies have spread damaging lies about climate change. He really thinks that the Daily Mail and the Murdoch press wanted to destroy Huhne because of his green credentials. We know that other people wanted to destroy him for more personal reasons.
Let’s turn to the triviaity. A respected former lecturer told me recently that he and his wife have a standing agreement that they will swap points although the situation hasn’t arisen. I was shocked by the silliness of it. They’re already guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Should I grass them up? Or would that be wasting police time? I know that both my father and grandmother have lied to policemen. It was decades ago but should I let it drop?
This offence was one decade ago. Was it necesary to revive it? In the case of Vicky Pryce, can she really be expected to remember clearly if she was coerced after this amount of time? Our memories play tricks on us. It is feasible that Chris Huhne neither coerced her into taking points or having an abortion but she has convinced herself that he did because she does not now want to take responsibity for actions she regrets.
Relatively trivial offences are usually allowed to lapse after a certain time. It would have been a mercy if it had happened here.
I feel it’s a mistake to set impossibly high standards. It just forces people to be hypocrites.
Christopher Hitchens remarked that Martin Luther King seems to have plagiarised his doctoral thesis and to have spent the evening before his assassination cavorting with a woman other than his wife. So what? Does it detract from his achievements? Not at all.
I remember two people I knew, baying for the blood of Ken Dodd when he was on trial for tax evasion. Were they scrupulously well behaved themselves? No. One was a callous compulsive thief and the other had served time in prison for a crime of violence. M has not been virulently self righteous about Huhne but some people have.
A ‘Rayjon’ remarked on the internet that Huhne’s pre-sentence speech was vacuous which it really wasn’t. He then said he hoped he’d be beaten up in prison. He ended by piously pontificating that he ‘needed help’ ie was crazy. It’s rare to see open aggression and sanctimonious crypto-aggression juxtaposed in the same comment. It is also depressing.These people could do with some self-awareness.
Family Affairs
March 17, 2013“M” – where have you gone??? Marianne is debating all by herself?? Are you a practicing lawyer now? Lx
Marianne
March 19, 2013I don’t know if M has tacitly conceded defeat or can’t be bothered to engage with my puerile arguments. Maybe he – or is it she? – has been rushed to hospital to have their toes uncurled. I don’t want to keep banging on with a monologue so I’ll bow out now unless someone wants to discuss,say,:
Is it ever wise to take revenge?
or
Should we keep the defence of marital coercion?
I’ll just say as a postscript that serving time for perjury doesn’t seem to have done Jonathan Aitken any good. He’s like a ghost of his former self. I feel a bit uneasy as well about how he’s done got religion. He thinks it was a redemptive episode but it’s hard to agree.
Maybe we’ll meet again, Family Affairs. Kind Regards
Marianne
Family Affairs
March 19, 2013Don’t worry – he will be back ….Lx