UKC

So Huhne has changed his plea to guilty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21320992

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/9847152/Chris-Huh...

His ex wife, who was complicit, 'outed him' when he left her for another woman despite the offence being 10 years old.

She will now also be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice.

Silly silly woman.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Are you saying it's wrong to admit to crimes you've committed? Perhaps she just couldn't live with the guilt?

In reply to ClimberEd:


Why is she necessarily silly? She may in fact be very brave, since she is claiming 'marital coercion' as her defence. It may well be that she was in an abusive marriage for all you know, and that she is only now in a position to put her side across without fearing him!!

On the other hand it may be all about revenge!!

In reply to SAF:

I'm sure she will claim whatever she can.

It stinks of revenge, but by doing so she is highly likely to go to prison....

She got f*cked over for another woman, she should have just let it lie.

In reply to ClimberEd:


He commited a crime either in conspiracy with his then wife, or by coercing her, either way he should have then thought twice about f*cking her over for another women (ie leaving the marriage of 26 years prior to starting another relationship) when she had something like that to use against him!!!

In reply to SAF:

Yep, he was an utter fool.

Can't help that think that the ex wife did not really think her actions through and if she knew she would be facing jail time by fessing up she probably would have kept quiet and sought recourse down some other avenue.

In reply to ClimberEd:

"Mr Justice Sweeney told Huhne he should “have no illusions whatsoever” about the type of sentence he is likely to receive. The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment."

LIFE IMPRISONMENT???

In reply to SAF:

Yes, perhaps not the best course of action.... but given that she is implicating herself but you might expect the best..... (ignoring 'frame of mind issues' ha)

In reply to Jus:


6 months then?

In reply to Mark Westerman:

In reply to ClimberEd:

He took two massive risks, one when he broke the law, and another when he broke his marriage vow, and he deserves whatever punishment he gets...

we will just have to see whether she has any evidence to support her claim of marital coercion, if she does, then that would make he a bully as well, so I would have even less sympathy for him!!!

In reply to SAF:

I'm sensing some issues here?

In reply to Jus:
"The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment."

Are we talking about perverting the course of justice or marrying?

In reply to The Lemming:

Ha, me too.

I'm sure 'marital coercion' went something along the lines of 'honey I've been caught by a camera, it will really impact on xyxyx (some election or something) if this gets out, can you take the points.?' Followed by 'sure, my licence is currently clean, no problem.'

In reply to The Lemming: I was sensing some issues from climberEd, particularly with his guilty until proven guilty stance towards Huhne's ex-wife!!!! Just saying maybe we should listen to her defence prior to passing judgement on her as vindictive or stupid!!!

In reply to ClimberEd:

...so it's all her fault?

Blimey.

In reply to SAF:

No issues here, move along now.... I am sure she is being vindictive.

In reply to johnjohn:

Fault for what? For bringing it up, well obviously. (she did.)

In reply to ClimberEd:


Maybe the conversaton went something more like...

'I got caught speeding, I will not take the points as it will affect my career, and you will take the points becasue I tell you too, as I tell you how to do everything in this marriage'.

Neither of us will ever know since we weren't there, either way he commited a crime and is being punished for it...happy days

In reply to johnjohn:

For ending up in the dock, yes.

In reply to SAF:

errr.... what is your problem? Been in an abusive marriage or something?!

I doubt it, I just think she's being stupid and was furious she was left for another woman. It's what women do, they go a bit mental when that happens..... happy days

In reply to ClimberEd:

Your male and see a women being vindictive, and can't see beyond that, I'm female and see the possibility that there could be more to it like, he may have been controlling towards her in their marriage!!!

In reply to ClimberEd:

Well that's good enough for me then. Thanks.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Fault for a minister perverting the course of justice, of course, the story you linked to. Isn't that what's got you so fired up?

In reply to ClimberEd:
No I haven't but I have come across plenty of women (and men) in my private and work life that have been in controlling relationships, and you shouldn't ignore the possiblity that this is the case here.

It could be a combination of both, she was coerced, but she also actively sought revenge...we just don't know!!

In reply to ClimberEd:


Blimey, it's been a while since I've read anything quite so unreconstructed on here. Or anywhere really. I'm guessing you have quite a bit of experience of women going mental in these circumstances?

In reply to SAF:
I think you'll find - as for most married men - he got his punishment for breaking his marriage vows in the divorce courts!

In reply to ClimberEd:

But anyway, I think you'll find the answer is included in your question.

In reply to SAF:

I doubt it.

I think you maybe missing the point that is is fairly 'normal' (although illegal, and I should state for the record I haven't and neither has anyone in my family.) for people to take points for each other.

So it doesn't surprise me at all that a wife had taken her husbands points or strike me as unusual behaviour.

If she had paraded through the streets naked and been flogged on his behalf I might be more believing of coercion.

In reply to ClimberEd:

According to the torygraph she was partying hard this weekend.

And the texts from his son are quite quaint:

28 June 2010

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: **** off

22 July 2010

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?

25 December 2010

CH: Happy Christmas. Love you, Dad.

PH: Well I hate you, so **** off.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Being reconstructed is boring.

And yes, thankfully from afar....

In reply to Goucho:


I really don't get this? Men don't get 'punished' by divorcing their wives. They don't have to pay anything at all to their wives unless the wife is actually a dependent, or looking after the man's children for him so that he doesn't have to sort this out for himself.

Most working women don't get any sort of a pay out, or may have to pay money to their ex-husbands.

The courts don't make you pay just because you are a man!

In reply to SAF:

You might be missing the point here. ClimberEd is suggesting that she has only herself to blame for her current predicament. Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of her present defence (i understand you are quite taken with it but that's beside the point), she would have avoided the inconvenience and risk of the whole hearing if she had just kept schtoom.

In reply to M0nkey:
>
she would have avoided the inconvenience and risk of the whole hearing if she had just kept schtoom.

Hmm. I think you may be underestimating the immeasurably deep need for revenge which often afflicts both parties as a divorce progresses. As m'learned friends come through the door all sense and reasonableness goes out of the window.

In reply to ClimberEd:

This is like the famous pschopath test, but for misogyny:

A male politician breaks the law and tries to cover it up by getting his wife to lie for him (whether freely or under duress). He then leaves his wife.

Anyone who can think the story is that the woman is the stupid ....

In reply to Jus:

The offence covers everything from providing a false alibi for a speeding ticket up to nobbling the jury in a murder trial, or falsely testifying
It's life imprisonment because he could, for example, have lied to get someone off a murder charge, and it would still be perverting the course of justice. Or he could have falsely testified to get someone innocent sent to jail who had been in jail for ten years...

See some guidelines here.

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

The most relevant case seems to be this one.

R v Francis-McGann [2003] 1 Cr. App. R. (S) 14
Speed camera case. Appellant was an army captain. He phoned the police to say that the vehicle had been exported, and subsequently sent a letter to the police. Convicted after trial. Sentence of three months imprisonment upheld.

In reply to M0nkey:


I am not missing the point, I don't agree with his point, there is a difference!! Had the OP given a third option and worded his question slightly differently, and ask 'how can a woman be so vindictive, stupid or BRAVE'. It would have been more balanced.

I am not 'taken with' her present defence, but I don't think it should be ignored as a possibility as others do.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Wiki says she's dating Denis MacShane, himself possiobly looking at a short stay in nick.

She must have a thing for millionaire bad boys living on the edge of the law.

In reply to Wicamoi:

She is cutting off her nose to spite her face.

In reply to SAF:

It wasn't supposed to be balanced. She's stupid.

In reply to Nutkey:

Ah, right. Gotcha.

In reply to tlm: You are obviously either very naive, or somewhat inexperienced in terms of divorce, because what you have just said is utter nonsense.

In reply to Goucho:

Are you sure? I'd be interested in some evidence for that.

ClimberEd : why do you hate women so much?

In reply to Tall Clare:

Isn't it obvious.... They won't take his speeding points.... ;O)

In reply to SFM:

Haha!

In reply to SFM:

Ha! Ha!

In reply to Tall Clare: Look up divorce settlement statistics, and then maybe talk to a number of divorced people - I won't use my own personal experience of 3 divorces, as that might make my comments seem biased.

In reply to Goucho:

I've talked to a number of divorced people - I can think of at least three where what you cite wasn't the case, so that's balanced out nicely

In reply to Goucho:

Three divorces? Are you the indecisive sort?

In reply to Tall Clare:


That's what i've wondered a little bit as well.

Think Chris Huhne might have saved his reputation if he'd come clean at the start, it wouldn't be as easy now.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Perhaps it's them rather than him? ()

In reply to Timmd:

Good point.

In reply to Tall Clare:

I think it takes a "special" sort of person to read this story and consider as a first response how stupid the woman was.

However, the marital coercion defence is rather 19th century and I'm struggling to see it's relevance.

In reply to SAF:
>

Punishment for breaking the Law, yes. But punishment for breaking his marriage vows? WTF has that got to do with The Law the Judge is appointed under?

In reply to Trangia:

He's been Punished for breaking the law over the speeding ticket (a crime), punishment for breaking his marriage vows is whatever his wife is able to dish out and like you say has nothing to do with the law. He f*cked up and handed her the rope to hang him with, whatever her reasoning for reporting him was!!!

In reply to Tall Clare:

I just love the wonderful presumption based on no knowledge of the facts, that so many folk on UKC jump to.

It says so much!

In reply to Goucho:

Sorry, I'm being horrible. I apologise.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Make your mind up....

In reply to Goucho:


Bless. I'm neither.

In reply to Goucho:


It's OK. We forgive you. It makes for a more interesting thread.

In reply to tlm:

Forgiving people does? I thought it was arguing? ()

In reply to ClimberEd:

I've thought of a great punishment for Chris Huhne. 3 months in prison in a cell with his wife.

**This is a joke**

In reply to Jus:

The maximum sentence for perverting the course of justice is indeed life, but the severity of the sentence tends to relate to the original crime. So if you are covering for a murderer, life is a possibility, for a speeding ticket, it is less so.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Alternatively what a really stupid and unpleasant man!

In reply to Goucho:

Maybe it is just you, my experience of divorce is just as tlm describes.

In reply to Tall Clare:

Errr I don't.

The stereotype of the woman scorned exists for a reason.

I'm guilty of stereotyping (I enjoy it, it makes for amusing conversation) but not hating women.

The view you've gained is from my stereotyping of women, not because I hate them.

In reply to ClimberEd: I have to say, I think your original post was quite reasonable. The original speeding offence and Huhne's decision to persuade his wife to take the penalty points occurred ten years ago. Yet Vicky Pryce only notified the authorities of what had occurred after Huhne had gone off with onother woman. Pryce gains nothing herself from denouncing Huhne - it was a vindictive act. Far from gainig from her denunciation, she will probably herself go to jail as a result.

I would disagree with anyone who said that her action was not extremely stupid or that it was not vindictive.

In reply to John2:
The original speeding offence and Huhne's decision to persuade his wife to take the penalty points occurred ten years ago. Yet Vicky Pryce only notified the authorities
(did she? I understood that she let the cat out of the bag in an email or something, and this got picked up. she didn't go to a police station and report him, as such.)

of what had occurred after Huhne had gone off with onother woman. Pryce gains nothing herself from denouncing Huhne >

Au contraire.....she gains a great deal, and it is priceless.



Well, I'm disagreeing with you.

Sx

From what I can gather, it is entirely understandable.

In reply to Sarah G: You're right - she didn't denounce Huhne to the authorities, but she confirmed the rumour in an interview with the Sunday Times.

What does Pryce gain personally, other than the opportunity to go to prison?

In reply to ClimberEd:

Actually I don't think she's silly at all. Far from it. I suspect she's made a cold-hearted decision to totally destroy her ex-husbands career in revenge for his actions, accepting that in the process she may well go to prison herself.

Obviously she'll try and get out of it if she can, but the reason for the act - to destroy ex-husbands career - has worked out nicely.

Far from silly.

In reply to The New NickB:

I am not completely sure I am only talking about Huhne!

In reply to John2:


Revenge

I know a divorcing couple where the stated aim of the spurned lady is to destroy her soon to be ex. The way she is going about it makes it clear that she doesn't very much care about the knock on cost to herself. And we're not talking small amounts of money here, never mind some of the emotional/family stuff.

I don't know how I'd feel about it without being in her position, so I don't feel like being overly judgemental about it. But it's not pleasant to watch as it were.

In reply to John2:

Obviously she gains revenge. I'm really surprised you can't see that.

In reply to John_Hat:
The word that comes to mind is.....satisfaction.

Sx

In reply to Sarah G:

... of a job well done. Agreed.

In reply to John2:

A Greek tradgey played out in public.....especially when Vicky Pryce is Greek.........

In reply to Sarah G: Revenge, satisfaction - they are both vindictive and unpleasant motivations.

I very much doubt whether Pryce stopped to think that in admitting to taking the points in Huhne's stead she was risking going to prison herself - that is the very definition of stupidity.

Then there's the matter of the effect on the welfare of their children -surely in cases of marital breakdown that should be the prime consideration of the parties concerned, rather than attempting to end the career of the other partner.

In reply to neilh: Greek tragedy is something that I know a little about. Attempting to ruin your husband's career because he has gone off with another woman is more the stuff of soap opera.

In reply to John2:

Nope. Disagree with you there. Women see these things differently.

Hardly. I would speculate that she either knew entirely what she was doing- or was indeed coerced to do it.

Certainly hasn't been on Huhne's mind, eh, as he (again and again) unzipped his fly.... and they're hardly toddlers now, you know.

Sx

In reply to John2:


They are very human emotions. At the last check, all parties were human.


I disagree. I think it was done in full knowledge and acceptance of the fact.

Jeez. You just don't get it do you? How long have you been living on planet earth? Have you ever broken up with a partner in high acrimony? Have you ever been dumped for someone with whom you think you cannot compete because they are xx years younger? How about spending 26 years with someone for them to throw all that on the scrapheap? Do you think that might leave some residual issues? Possibly a little bit of resentment, anger even?

Obviously Society currently thinks the scorned person should just accept that they are no longer wanted and fade into the twilight, but sometimes the scorned person feels like a little bit of revenge, a little bit of sticking the knife in and paying back the adulterous tw*t for not being able to be faithful. And good on them.

And obviously you have not considered that poor Mr Huhne might have considered thinking about the bl**dy kids when he was sh*gging his mistress in his constituancy home? It's not like adultery is generally a breaker of marriages or anything is it?

In reply to Sarah G: Who do you imagine coerced her to do it?

In reply to John_Hat: When you say "and good on them" is that just in this case or does anything go, in revenge terms, when a relationship breaks down?

In reply to Sarah G: 'Women see these things differently'

What would your reaction have been if the roles had been reversed? If a man had attempted to ruin his wife's career?

In reply to Sarah G:

How is revenge not an unpleasant motivation? It's not something to be proud of is it?! The whole driving force behind it is to make someone else suffer regardless of consequences (I'm NOT defending the bloke here, he deserves what he gets).


So now she was coerced into reporting it as well? Is she not accountable for her own actions at all then? Just easily 'coerced'!?


True, he is clearly a horrible human being.

2 wrongs don't make a right though and I think she is exactly as the OP suggests. Vindictive and stupid in equal measure, what an ugly saga from both parties.

In reply to John_Hat:

It's also more than a slight possibility that the sort of woman who would partner the desperately ambitious Huhne as he back-stabbed and dirty-tricked himself towards the top might have underlying vicious streak herself. Vindictive knifings are the meat and drink of the political game in this country.

As dishes go, this one was served ice cold. And there's still a very good chance that he'll go to prison while she gets a suspended sentence after pleading a combination of parental responsibilities and marital coercion.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Obviously totally depends on the circumstances and the individuals themselves. What would be vastly over the top for one situation might be proportionate for another.

If you've ever read "Life and Loves of a She Devil" then most people start off feeling sorry for her, and end up with at least a pang of sympathy for him, and she takes revenge through, beyond, and over the cliff of what might be considered "too far".

However where that line is drawn, where exatly in the book you start thinking "Woah, stop!" will depend on the person.

In reply to John_Hat: So, where ending a career might be appropriate in one instance, acid in the face might be appropriate in another?

In reply to John2:

I think the son has made his feelings pretty plain. He despises his father for the way he has behaved and especially for implicating his family members in his persistent and obvious lies.

In reply to Reach>Talent: I've never really thought of marriage as a word more of a sentence really.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Stop being a twit.

In reply to John_Hat: I'll try to stop being a twit if you consider that what constitutes appropriate revenge doesn't depend on how the spurned person feels.

In reply to PebblePusher:
That surely depends largely on which end you are veiwing it from.

It's not something to be proud of is it?!

She probably isn't "proud of it"...just entirely satisfied.

The whole driving force behind it is to make someone else suffer regardless of consequences (I'm NOT defending the bloke here, he deserves what he gets).

Yup. Tells you a lot about how she's been made to feel over theyears, hm?

Tch. Go back and READ my post. That isn't what I said at all.

I think the lady concerned would disagree with you there!

and I think she is exactly as the OP suggests.

Whatever. It's your opinion.

what an ugly saga from both parties.

Got that right, sugar!

Sx

In reply to John2:

I'd have thought, "Oh, pretty normal predictable and common behaviour, there."

Sx

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't want to derail your argument, especially when you were so enjoying it, but that's not actually what I said.

What I said was "Obviously totally depends on the circumstances and the individuals themselves. What would be vastly over the top for one situation might be proportionate for another."

If you want to read that as "what constitutes appropriate revenge depends on how the spurned person feels" that's up to you, but its going to be tricky (if wholly traditional) having an internet argument when one party doesn't have any interest in reading what the other puts, don't you think?

In reply to John_Hat: So when you said However where that line is drawn...will depend on the person" are you not saying that the spurned person gets to decide what revenge is appropriate?
Is it even worth asking this or are you going to spit your dummy and delete again?

In reply to Sarah G: Remind me never to marry you.

In reply to John2:


The youngest one is TWENTY!!! Hardly a child!

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I deleted and reposted because there was a typo I missed which I noticed after posting. Erm. Not all of this is about you.

In reply to Sarah G:

You seem to be fairly proud (approving?) of a woman's attempt to destroy a man's career.

I think it's petty and pathetic. (or even vindictive and silly )

Glad you've all come around to my way of thinking

In reply to ClimberEd: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/9849727/Vicky-Pry...

"Vicky Pryce, the ex-wife of Chris Huhne, told a newspaper she had taken speeding points for him to get “revenge” and destroy his career after he left her for another woman, a jury has been told".

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

A jury has been told by the Prosecution.

In reply to ClimberEd:


Fixed that for you

In reply to John_Hat:

People decide the fancy other people, have affairs, marriages break up.

Men and woman screw each other over all the time, that doesn't justify revenge or vindictive behaviour.

In reply to SAF:


Perhaps she was only too happy to participate with his lie, her having much to gain from his continued place in politics.

Based on what we know so far I don't see how she is any less guilty than he is.

In reply to ClimberEd:

I don't believe that vindictive acts of revenge like this are just carried out by women.

In reply to Ava Adore:

That has nothing to do with my judgement of this singular act, which is current news and happens to be carried out by a woman.

In reply to ClimberEd:

What did you expect her to do? Say "Oh so you're ditching me for the proverbial younger, blonder model after I've supported you through your career, stood dutifully by you while you trotted out all those election leaflets with pictures of me and the kids and saying how the family was at the heart of your philosophy (which you did!)? But don't worry dear because I'm so pleased for you. I hope you'll both be ecstatically happy together."
He should look on the bright side. At least she didn't Bobbitt him.

In reply to David Martin:

Well we know her defence, it is up to the court to decide her level of guilt.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Honestly, yeah, something like that. Wish them well and move on.

Otherwise, what you're saying is that marriage becomes a prison for life, 'leave at your peril'. That shouldn't be the case.

In reply to winhill:

Ok, if you want to be pedantic

A series of emails between Pryce and Sunday Times political journalist Isabel Oakeshott was read out by prosecutor Andrew Edis, QC.

Oakeshott emailed Pryce in March 2011 to confirm “your dual objective is to bring Chris down if we can without seriously damaging your own reputation in the process”.

One hour later Pryce replies by email: “I have no doubt because I definitely want to nail him more than ever, actually, and I would love to do it soon.”

Mr Edis told the jury of eight women and four men: “It became public because Ms Pryce told a newspaper, actually more than one.

“And she told the newspapers because by then, 2010/11, she had learned that Mr Huhne had been having an affair with somebody else and he, Mr Huhne, had told her, in a way which you may learn something about, that he did not want to be with Ms Pryce any more, it was over.”

He said the ending of a long marriage in circumstances like that would undoubtedly be “a cause of immense distress to any wife, or husband come to that”.

“And there is no doubt at all that Ms Pryce was distressed. But there is also no doubt at all that she was not only distressed but extremely angry and she wanted some revenge.

“And her revenge was in the end to pass the story about the 2003 crime to the newspapers so that it would be published in the end, that it would destroy her husband’s career.”

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/revenge-of-chris-huhnes-exwife-vicky-p...

What holes do you want to pick out of the reporter's piece?

In reply to winhill: Ms Oakeshott later replied: "The bottom line is that this story will bring Chris down if you are prepared to go on the record, with the minor risk this carries.

"I think you can make yourself out to be very much the honourable one, saying it has very much been on your conscience ever since, saying you knew it was wrong but you were bullied into it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21333624

In reply to Ava Adore:


Entirely anecdotally, and from a totally unrepresentative sample of personal experience and that of close friends, both men and women can take this sort of thing pretty hard, but women (apparently rational, level-headed women in a normal context, or on the basis of previous experience), can go completely insane.

Men tend to get drunk a lot.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Really? I'm guessing relationships don't mean much to you then, or you've not had many, and that you've never been dumped. That's not an insult, by the way, but I'm honestly really quite surprised that soemone could say that they would expect a woman of 26 years marriage who is dumped for a younger model to "Wish them well and move on".

I would say that 95% (at least) of women in that position would be upset and angry, to put it mildly.

In reply to John_Hat:


Yes, but that's not an excuse to exact revenge. As I said earlier, otherwise marriage would be locked in for life - if you leave you risk wrath - not quite how society envisages it should be.

In reply to ClimberEd:

I would say that we have to accept that society is made up of human beings, and however irrational it may be to some, to others it is natural to want to hurt the person who hurt you, as much in respect of infidelity as a punch in the mouth.

It may not be wise, clever, or productive, but it's the way humans are made.

In reply to John_Hat:

And (if I am honest, hopefully) she's going to prison for it

People need to learn to control their emotions.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

You gotta love what people will put into writing rather than use the phone!

Although that is still consistent with the behaviour of someone who was coerced originally, someone who wants to fight back.

Separately it makes the defence of marital coercion look even more prejudiced, it was nearly removed in a review in 1977, as it was seen as inappropriate even back then. It relates to women who are financially dependent on their husbands, which was never the case here as she supported him in the early years.

If she gets away with it perhaps there will be more effort made to ditch the law again.

In reply to ClimberEd:
>. As I said earlier, otherwise marriage would be locked in for life

Yup. I guess that's what some people may construe "Till death us do part" might mean

- if you leave you risk wrath - not quite how society envisages it should be.

Yup you do risk wrath and often it's pretty brutal. But if you hurt people you should not be too surprised if they hurt you back

In reply to ClimberEd:


Do you really think people should routinely go to prison for lying about speeding offences? Is that really what we need prison for?
I agree that her motives seem to have been entirely destructive, financially and reputationally, but far more violent actions are still all too common in these situations.

In reply to ClimberEd: Apparently, she wanted to nail him so i would suspect she is more vindictive than stupid.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Probably with a smile on her face through.. it's very difficult to adequately sanction someone who both enjoys what she has done, is pleased she has done it, and is happy to take the consequences.


We're not robots.

In reply to John_Hat:

I'm sure there is a point where the smile would be wiped off her face.

And regarding your second point, at what level do you need to control your emotions? Just before you obtain a gun to shoot someone? Just before you pull the trigger? Afterwards?

'we're not robots' is no excuse for poor behaviour.

In reply to ClimberEd:

I was responding to your comment earlier in the thread "It's what women do, they go a bit mental when that happens..... happy days "

In reply to Ava Adore:

See other poster above.

Men generally go and get drunk, women generally go completely mental.

It's not always that way round, but more often than not.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Thanks for that. I feel enlightened in the ways of the world now.

In reply to Ava Adore:

Quiet you mental women!

In reply to Cú Chullain:

Of course. My apologies.

<goes off to fix speeding cameras round Cu's way>

In reply to ClimberEd:

erm... you ever beeen accused of posessing empathy?

In reply to John_Hat: empathy - is that like emotional intelligence, a cliche for the smug and self-righteous to batter those who don't agree with them around the head with?

In reply to Simon4:

I was working on this definition:

Empathy is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another sentient or fictional being. One may need to have a certain amount of empathy before being able to experience compassion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

However do feel free to work on any other definition you see fit.

In reply to John_Hat: You are confusing empathy with agreeing with the actions of an appalling person. Shakespeare could not have written Othello without possessing empathy for the Iagos of this world, but that is not to say that he condoned the actions of his character.

In reply to Ava Adore:

Well you seemed to be blissfully unaware previously....

In reply to John2:

As said, I can have empathy whilst still disagreeing with the behaviour.

In reply to John2:

Nope, I am saying that the comment "Men generally go and get drunk, women generally go completely mental." could be described as lacking empathy.

In reply to John_Hat:

Ah, that is just from observation and anecdote.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Ah, my observation and anecdote is at considerable variance to yours.

In fact the last bloke I spoke to in this situation was avoiding the booze like the plague, as felt that he might do something stupid if he started drinking, as he was barely holding on to reality as it was. By stupid, I mean suicidal.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Clearly. It's either because I'm blonde, female or past 30. Pick a sterotype.

In reply to Ava Adore:


I'll have all three please.

In reply to Ava Adore:


If only my car was capable of breaking the speed limit

In reply to John_Hat:

You're just being facetious.

I'm well aware I am generalising and you will always be able to find a counter example, however I am quite happy doing so. It provides me with an enjoyable framework with which to judge the world

In reply to ClimberEd:

If your framework is defined by your words:

"Men generally go and get drunk, women generally go completely mental"

Then can I please have a ringside seat (or at least a video, if they can prise the camera out of your cold, dead hands) the next time you run that framework past one of the female of our species?

In reply to John_Hat:

You would be welcome... I'll put tickets in the post....!

In reply to ClimberEd:

Ta!

In reply to Ava Adore:

30!!!!!!

In reply to John_Hat: So indeed a load of pretentious pseudo-scientific psycho-babble, existing solely for those on high-horses to look down on those of a different opinion.

In reply to Simon4:

If you want to drop in and let us know which conversation you are in, any time would be cool....

It's been insults and banter all the way since your last post, if there's been any "pretentious pseudo-scientific psycho-babble" then I've missed it...

In reply to ClimberEd:

I thought it was interesting to read on the BBC story that the defence she (apparently) intends to use is one that is only available to women! I'm surprised that is still allowed after the equality act.

Seems a little bit anachronistic, particularly in this case. Will be interesting to see if she makes it stick.

In reply to RCC:



Having seen and listened to some of the evidence on Ch4 news tonight she's got no chance. It's difficult to imagine how someone who is seemingly intelligent and a politician's wife could have been so stupid...and the Sunday Times Journalist who got her to stitch up her hubby acted in a despicable manner, "oh just tell the police you were coerced". What a cow.

In reply to tlm:

That's true, it'd still hurt like hell to see your parents doing what they're doing, though.

In reply to ClimberEd:

SHE's stupid?? Really?

In reply to ClimberEd: Sorry I missed this one.

Maybe she doesn't care, about going to jail, maybe the lies he was telling her, while he was shagging his new bit of stuff got on her tits a bit.

Perhaps she is the type of person who doesn't lie and doesn't like lying, it might be a blessed relief to unburden herself, even at the risk of going to jail herself.

or maybe she's just a vindictive cow.

the point is we don't know, and we're not likely to, but you seem to have made your mind up and made up a story to fit what you think. After which you've tarred most women with the same brush. Do you have Mammy issues?

At end of it all it might not be what he did, but the way he went about it, that’s got the lady a little ticked off.