I’m going to plump for 20 months for her, 16 months for him.

If there’s a big difference between the sentences (and of course justice must be blind), especially if Pryce gets more, there will be uproar!

If justice is blind, then Pryce must get more. If that provokes uproar, then an awful lot of people haven’t understood the law.

If that provokes uproar, then an awful lot of people haven’t understood the law.

Well done.

8 months for her, 12 for him is my guess.

If justice is blind, then Pryce must get more.

Because she is funny looking?

She should get longer than him for being a bitter bint.

[quote]…talk about a woman scorned![/quote]if she’s an acrimonious ex purely out for revenge then call her out on it but can we leave out the (perceived) blatant sexism please.

Thankfully, sentencing doesn’t work like headteachers handing out detentions.

some of the seemingly arbitrary sentencing handed out it could be headteachers doing it, catch em on a good day a “sorry” and a genuine remorseful look will see you walk out but a bad day and there’s hell to pay.

but yeah IANAL

Huhne obviously avoided a perjury charge by pleading guilty

He would never have faced a perjury charge as you have to lie in court/under oath, what you say anywhere else is beside the point.

This thread should have been called “Sentencing: Name that Huhne.” or “Sentencing: The Pryce is Right.”
RM.

He would never have faced a perjury charge as you have to lie in court/under oath

If he’d have gone to court and denied it, and it was found that he was actually driving that day, then yes, he would have faced a perjury charge*. I’m guessing he knew that he was done for, especially with all the phone recordings and saved text messages, so he pleaded guilty.

what you say anywhere else is beside the point.

Indeed, so he didn’t deny it in court.

*EDIT: Well, there’d be grounds for one…whether or not he’d be charged with it, I dunno.

For Huhne the Bell Tolls, shurely?

She should get longer than him for being a bitter bint.

Well if you’re going to apply those principles, then surely he should get longer for being a ****!

He was mithering and badgering her to take his points for him at the same time he was knocking off his researcher. While obviously playing the spousal obligation card. That’s about as hard-faced as it gets! (Typical politician!) I suppose that if that was you, you’d just shrug and chalk it down to experience, would you?

For Huhne the Bell Tolls, shurely?

Very good! If you’re not writing headlines for the Sun Martin, then you’ve missed your true vocation in life 😀

Sorry if I upset your obviously sensitive side there D0NK, however if you’re going to turn into the PC police at least use my quote in it’s full context:

Seems to me she’s tried to use the criminal justice system to exact revenge, talk about a woman scorned!

How is that not calling her out for being “an acrimonious ex purely out for revenge” ? Blatant sexism?

Edit: This bit I agree with though:

some of the seemingly arbitrary sentencing handed out it could be headteachers doing it, catch em on a good day a “sorry” and a genuine remorseful look will see you walk out but a bad day and there’s hell to pay.

Very good! If you’re not writing headlines for the Sun Martin, then you’ve missed your true vocation in life

I did actually have a brief interlude writing headlines for a local rag…

I can’t imagine that Huhne one has been overlooked. It’s too obvious.

**** it, cba

From @tomsymonds tweeting from the trial:

Edis: its not unfair to suggest that if #huhne had succeeded in halting case the course of justice would in fact have been further perverted

Now costs being listed. CPS costs v Huhne – £79,014. CPS for Pryce: £38,544

interesting that costs for his case were higher despite no trial(s).

interesting that costs for his case were higher despite no trial(s).

I think that was down to him doing more to stop it coming to trial…so they’re associated costs, not direct trial costs. They’re properly going after him. 😀

EDIT:

tomsymonds ?@tomsymonds
Apologies – correction – additional police costs were £31,000 — due to to attempts by #huhne to stay proceedings.

That’s because of all the pre-trial legal wrangling by him attempting to get the case thrown out.

“acrimonious ex” is unrelated to the sex of the person, “a woman scorned” and “bitter bint” are.

Can I just check whether “bitter ex-wife” is OK?

Life on the Isle of Dogs in an [video]http://youtu.be/ckvDo2JHB7o[/video] stylee

Though of far more concern is the slipping standards of BBC journos “awaiting to be sentenced” 🙄
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21737627

Can I just check whether “bitter ex-wife” is OK?

How about “understandably bitter ex-wife”?

I think that’s a pleonasm, binners.

my bitter ex wife is not ok

HTH

this is a woman getting all nowty about a little thing like her partner cheating on her whilst getting her to front up for his wrongdoings.

No, as I see things this is a person using the criminal justice system (at the tax payers probable expense) to try to exact revenge on her partner for cheating on her. The sex of either party makes not a jot of difference to me and I don’t see why it should to anyone.

Pryce’s lawyer is currently playing the violin…

No, as I see things this is a person using the criminal justice system (at the tax payers probable expense) to try to exact revenge on her partner for cheating on her.

which is of course very wrong

The sex of either party makes not a jot of difference to me and I don’t see why it should to anyone.

I agree

Indeed, to counter the “bitter bint” stuff…her lawyer says:

When she courted the media, Pryce’s “judgement was clouded by her grief” at marriage break-up, Knowles says

Do they have to do this mitigation thing? Seems to me that it’s just another way of whining and wheedling out of taking responsibility for what they did. If I was the judge, I’d be inclined to take their mitigating pleas into account and increase their sentences for wasting time. And bill them it too.

IANAL, obviously

in some cases the mitigation is important in others it may just be pleading and scrapping the barell

Though of far more concern is the slipping standards of BBC journos “awaiting to be sentenced”

Clearly BBC journos read STW 8) though I’d have preferred “sentencing”

Blimey, can’t the beak just get on with it and hand out the punishment?

I know that Huhne has been in parliament for a good few years now, but I reckon he’s not looking forward to his next meeting with ‘black rod’

Oh dear, the homophobic prison jokes have started…

if she’s an acrimonious ex purely out for revenge then call her out on it but can we leave out the (perceived) blatant sexism please.

It’s not sexism but fact and in answer to your question – no. Now what?

Oh dear, the homophobic prison jokes have started…

Par for the course once we’ve done the blatant sexism.

Do we wonder how you walk without your knuckles scrapping the floor?

It’s not sexism

The word you used is – at least implied (given, and here I agree to some extent with FSF, it’s not a word you’d use about a man, nor is there a direct equivalent). Probably best to leave it. Maybe you should try re-reading it, googling the words you used and have a think.

no idea junky lad, do we?

Blimey, can’t the beak just get on with it and hand out the punishment?

+1, all this mitigation nonsense will take days…

Just hang them both now and be done with it.