/ Looks like Huhne's wife was manipulated after all

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The Lemming - on 05 Feb 2013
Anybody care to defend Mrs Huhne's reputation that she was not playing with fire?

This scorned woman is going to get her fingers burnt.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/wife-ruined-huhnes-career-over-affair-court-hears-173322972.html
Orgsm on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

Whether she was manipulated is yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
subalpine - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to The Lemming: takes the heat off the banks..
Gordon Stainforth - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

I can't see that she's in any less trouble than he is over this.
dissonance - on 05 Feb 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I can't see that she's in any less trouble than he is over this.

depends if she does manage the coerced wife defence.
Even if not she might still consider it worth it. His political career is gone.
Gordon Stainforth - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to dissonance:

Sure. It's seems like sheer hubris blinded him, and that until quite recently he really thought that if he threw enough money at it in legal fees he'd somehow prove his "innocence". Sad correspondence with his son.
ena sharples - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to The Lemming: don't see how she can swing the "he made me do it" defence-does not exactly come across as a shrinking violet. Would not be surprised to see both going down for this.
Another example of just how weird super-ambituous politicians are-as if they really are from a different planet
cb294 - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to ena sharples:

Three weeks in a shared cell, both wearing Guantanamo style jumpers printed with a portrait of Sartre and the slogan "Hell is others"?

CB
Offwidth - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to ena sharples:

I don't know, I can see plenty of ordinary people doing this. I even know a senior manager who regularly got overseas pals to take his points. I don't want to defend either Hulme or his wife but from an overall moral perspective do people really think such behaviour deserves the public money spent on this trial and worst still a very likely pair of jail sentances? The whole process around a lot of speeding fines seems to be to be much more about defending fund raising and the bogus sanctity of the courts than morals and public safety.
Tall Clare - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

I might be wrong but I thought Ena was referring more to the remarkably sordid mess this particular case has turned into, rather than the speeding fine transfer itself.

The more I read the more surprised I am that the son hasn't washed his hands of both parents...
Offwidth - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Tall Clare:

Good people can do surprisingly bad things in a nasty divorce. Can be especialy devastating for young kids. Again the moral line is to at least try some form of mediation first as the legal route encourages things to get worse.

I'd prefer to see evidence obtained in such circumstances for such trivial crime to not be admissiable otherwise the state is encouraging misery at the taxpayesr expense. Compare this zealousness to the state's record on convicting rapists, as reported in the nationals a few weeks back.
Sir Chasm - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Offwidth: If only there were some equivalent to speed cameras that would make rape easier to prove.
Offwidth - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

The evidence certainly existed in many of those cases that led nowhere that is the real scandal. You can say the same about burglaries and other significant serious crime as well.
Sir Chasm - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Offwidth: It was a fatuous comparison.
Offwidth - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

In your opinion. Anyway with beautiful serendipity I've just been told woman's hour today involved discussion including courts regularly failing to investigate safety issues relating to child custody arrangements (to reduce pressure on court time). Yet another example of oddly distorted priority.
Sir Chasm - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Offwidth: Of course it's my opinion, whose opinion are you giving?
So what are you trying to say? Not all crimes are investigated as well as they should be, so when the police found out that Chris Huhne and his wife had both committed a crime they shouldn't have investigated? Or that having investigated, there should be no charges (because there aren't always charges in other cases)?
Do you think the Huhnes have been given special treatment? Or do you think they should be treated differently?
John2 - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Offwidth: What sort of message does it convey to the population if a serving cabinet minister is revealed in a newspaper interview to have perverted the course of justice in a minor manner, and no legal recrimination takes place? Are you aware that Huhne is the first serving cabinet minister in British history to be forced from office by a criminal charge?
Eric9Points - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to ena sharples)
>
> I don't know, I can see plenty of ordinary people doing this. I even know a senior manager who regularly got overseas pals to take his points. I don't want to defend either Hulme or his wife but from an overall moral perspective do people really think such behaviour deserves the public money spent on this trial and worst still a very likely pair of jail sentances? The whole process around a lot of speeding fines seems to be to be much more about defending fund raising and the bogus sanctity of the courts than morals and public safety.

Yep.

I guess though that as a politician Huhne should have campaigned for a change in the law rather than attempt to avoid it. His actions are perfectly human though.
off-duty - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

Your senior manager is clearly an idiot 1) For repeatedly getting points 2)for repeatedly perverting the course of justice to avoid them 3)for telling other people what he is doing.
Simon_Sheff - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Offwidth) Of course it's my opinion, whose opinion are you giving?
> So what are you trying to say? Not all crimes are investigated as well as they should be, so when the police found out that Chris Huhne and his wife had both committed a crime they shouldn't have investigated? Or that having investigated, there should be no charges (because there aren't always charges in other cases)?
> Do you think the Huhnes have been given special treatment? Or do you think they should be treated differently?

Your obviously unaware that you are not allowed to disagree with Offwidth (font of all knowledge and expert opinion) :-)
Offwidth - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty:

Said senior manager never had much happen to them for doing a lot worse and is safely away on a big pension now.
off-duty - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> Said senior manager never had much happen to them for doing a lot worse and is safely away on a big pension now.

Sounds a bit like an MEP who had nothing much happen to him and then gets elected as an MP and rises to be a serious candidate for leadership......
toad - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Offwidth)
> [...]
>
> Yep.
>
> I guess though that as a politician Huhne should have campaigned for a change in the law rather than attempt to avoid it. His actions are perfectly human though.

He did, didn't he. Hasn't the schaudenfroidsturm included clips of him saying 99% of criminals never get caught and that therefore the focus on sentencing at the time was irrelevant?

I'll see if I can find it...
toad - on 06 Feb 2013
dissonance - on 06 Feb 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> Said senior manager never had much happen to them for doing a lot worse and is safely away on a big pension now.

sounds like it wouldnt have been a bad thing then to do him for perjury/perversion of justice with regards to one of the speeding offences then.

ena sharples - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Tall Clare: correct-we only have her word for it that she went along with the deceit due to heavy pressure. Must be an odd coincidence that that version supports her attempts to avoid prison.
johncoxmysteriously - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

What strikes me about this tale is the relatively little grief Vicki P is getting for her homophobic abuse of the admittedly rather unphotogenic new Mrs H.

I'm a bit surprised Huhne isn't giving evidence for the prosecution. You'd think he'd have cut a deal.

Anyway, here's hoping she goes down. Difficult to recall a nastier bit of work in public life for some time.

'Good people do bad things' - sheesh, what a foolish sophistry. If you only behave well when not under pressure, you weren't that good at all, now were you?

jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Incidentally, if this case has one good outcome, it would be the removal of the ludicrous and outdated defence of 'marital coercion' from the statute books. It really shouldn't be open to a grown and educated woman to say 'I know I committed a criminal offence but the nasty man made me do it.'. That's a plea in mitigation, not a defence.

jcm
andy - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: is "a big boy did it and ran away" still available?
Jim C - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> Said senior manager never had much happen to them for doing a lot worse and is safely away on a big pension now.

Are you not then complicit in a crime that he 'confessed' to you, and you failed to report.

Maybe off duty can rule on this one, he can be the UKC judge and the rest of us can be the jury, and when we find you guilty, (and we will) we can start a new thread on how best to punish you.
As far as I know the death penalty is available to UKC posters.
( torture is also an option, if you don't immediately confess.)

How do you plead?

nocker - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to The Lemming: I am ever more aware of my own naievety but I am aware that Wikithing is not wholly reliable. I did however look up a couple of the main players and was staggered to read of previous and current relationships and scandals and then we wonder why the great and good get us into the mess we are in.
Jim C - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> Incidentally, if this case has one good outcome, it would be the removal of the ludicrous and outdated defence of 'marital coercion' from the statute books. It really shouldn't be open to a grown and educated woman to say 'I know I committed a criminal offence but the nasty man made me do it.'. That's a plea in mitigation, not a defence.
>
> jcm

Well she has apparently now claimed that he also forced her to take the life of their unborn child, and she had an abortion, but she regrets now that she was persuaded by him to do so.
Martial coercion will survive beyond this one I think.

Is she playing a game of gaining sympathy? It might well work and she may walk on this one
Sarah G on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Jim C:
> (In reply to Offwidth)
> [...]
>
> Are you not then complicit in a crime that he 'confessed' to you, and you failed to report.
>
> Maybe off duty can rule on this one, he can be the UKC judge and the rest of us can be the jury, and when we find you guilty, (and we will) we can start a new thread on how best to punish you.
> As far as I know the death penalty is available to UKC posters.
> ( torture is also an option, if you don't immediately confess.)
>
> How do you plead?

LIke it, but it does have one flaw...the great and not-so good of UKC are a bit fixated on being both judge and jury....

Sx
The Lemming - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Sarah G:

Blindness, works both ways with the UKC community.
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Jim C:
> (In reply to Offwidth)
> [...]
>
> Are you not then complicit in a crime that he 'confessed' to you, and you failed to report.
>
> Maybe off duty can rule on this one, he can be the UKC judge and the rest of us can be the jury, and when we find you guilty, (and we will) we can start a new thread on how best to punish you.
> As far as I know the death penalty is available to UKC posters.
> ( torture is also an option, if you don't immediately confess.)
>
> How do you plead?

LOL.
Well with my background he's obviously guilty.
(Though unfortunately I can't find an offence to fit. Unlike Oakeshott who appears, by suggesting defences to Pryce, to have been involved in conspiracy to pervert)
Wiley Coyote - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Jim C)
> [...]
>
> LOL.
> Well with my background he's obviously guilty.
> (Though unfortunately I can't find an offence to fit.

Well if we're talking offences isn't this whole thread contempt of court?
off-duty - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> Well if we're talking offences isn't this whole thread contempt of court?

I don't think so - discussing the front page news story of the week where court reports are released in detail.
Wiley Coyote - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to off-duty:

I'm not so sure. A publication (as a website presumably is) can report what happens in court but not comment on it until after the verdict. The test IIRC is 'serious risk of substantial prejudice' (or vice versa). Hence discussing it in the pub would not be contempt since it's very unlikely a juror would overhear it. Putting the same discussion in the Sun would almost certainly be contempt because of the much greater risk of a juror seeing it. A website like this falls somewhere in the middle, exactly where would be a matter of opinion.
John_Hat - on 07 Feb 2013
In reply to John2:
> Are you aware that Huhne is the first serving cabinet minister in British history to be forced from office by a criminal charge?

I'm amazed that Huhne is the first serving cabinet minister in British history to be forced from office by a criminal charge?

What have the plods been doing?
Jim Fraser - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to ena sharples)
>
> I don't know, I can see plenty of ordinary people doing this. I even know a senior manager who regularly got overseas pals to take his points. ...

I once stood in the hallway of a court building listening to a guy telling his girlfriend exactly what lies to tell to get him off, while they stood next to the door of the faculty rooms, and next to where several solicitors where talking to clients, and a few metres from several court service staff. I looked around to see if there was anyone else who was concerned by this spectacle and nobody even seemed to notice.
ads.ukclimbing.com
off-duty - on 08 Feb 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to Sir Chasm)
>
> The evidence certainly existed in many of those cases that led nowhere that is the real scandal. You can say the same about burglaries and other significant serious crime as well.

I'm intrigued as to what unused evidence was involved in the rape cases you are referring to.
Incidentally rape trials routinely will present phone evidence where relevant - and as many cases involve people who know each other it often is.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.