Pryce Jury Fail

All over a measly 3 points!

Yep, but they’d have been his 10th, 11th and 12th…

I can’t see anyone volunteering to take points for their spouse/friend, got to be atleast an element of persuasion shirley?

Mind you I’d have thought anyone of reasonable intelligence who had already racked up 9 points would be a bit more careful with their driving, so what do i know.

Bullying of a spouse is domestic violence

Is it? I suspect the twitter journo you’re so much a fan of might take exception to trivialising real DV in that way.

Though it did occur to me that fleetstreetfox is wrong in her principle assertion anyway. “Bitter” isn’t “a word only ever used to describe females”. Her understanding of English isn’t very good either – she claims “Bitter means you crave a return to a former situation”, when that’s not a definition I can find here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bitter, from Collins, “showing or caused by strong unrelenting hostility or resentment he was still bitter about the divorce“

I’m not a twit – I don’t suppose anybody who is on twitter is brave enough to tweet the following:

@fleetstreetfox Bitter ex-husband #thingspeopledontsayaboutmen – oh hang on, that’s not actually the case http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2182568/Bitter-ex-husband-town-Mayor-sent-letters-colleagues-local-paper-branding-drug-taking-swinging-adulterer.html

(I don’t know how twitter works – do you have to shorten URLs first or is it automatic?)

I can’t see anyone volunteering to take points for their spouse/friend, got to be atleast an element of persuasion shirley?

“Persuade” and “coerce” are not synonyms.

As a wider point – it’s an inherently sexist defence, as it’s not available to men.

Aracer – isn’t there an adjunct to Godwin’s law to the effect that if you have to rely on the Mail for an argument you’ve already lost? 😉

I’m not ‘such a fan’ she just made a few points in her early response about DV that I found intrigueing. The whole ‘bitter’ thing was a separate issue.

My personal view is that it is possible to be a victim of DV without having experienced physical harm. The pyschological elements of the abuser/abused relationship are often far more significant than any physical force that is used.

Aracer – isn’t there an adjunct to Godwin’s law to the effect that if you have to rely on the Mail for an argument you’ve already lost?

Certainly lost your dignity!

My personal view is that it is possible to be a victim of DV without having experienced physical harm. The pyschological elements of the abuser/abused relationship are often far more significant than any physical force that is used.

+1

I was responding to Ernies point about this ‘long list of accomplishments’ woman who would, therefore, be incapable of being bullied by her husband.

Only I didn’t say that.

So you were responding to something which I hadn’t said ?

Cripes. She’s got a face like a bag of smashed crabs.

Cripes. She’s got a face like a bag of smashed crabs.

She thinks you’re an ugly SOB too.

She thinks you’re an ugly SOB too.

😆

I found it difficult to believe that the ‘long list of accomplishments’ was some sort of weak and timid shrinking violet who was bullied by her husband

All sorts of people are bullied in spite of how they might appear to be to the outside world.

All sorts of people are bullied in spite of how they might appear to be to the outside world.

Here’s my full unedited post wwaswas

ernie_lynch – Member

I can’t say I’m surprised. I found it difficult to believe that the former chief economist to Williams & Glyn’s Bank, KPMG, the DTI, and former Head of the Government Economic Service, a woman at the very top of her profession and commanding a salary quite possibly larger than her husband’s, was some sort of weak and timid shrinking violet who was bullied by her husband into taking speeding points against her will.
Posted 2 hours ago #

Saying “I can’t say I’m surprised” isn’t the same as saying that she was “incapable of being bullied by her husband”.

I left it to the jury to decide.

Perhaps you should too.

anonymouse – I don’t have to rely on the DM, it was just the first British tabloid link I found (given fsf writes for the Mirror, it seemed suitably appropriate). In any case, it’s not as if I’ll find such a tabloid headline term in the Guardian. Plenty of other use of the “bitter” concerning men out there, including I realised the dictionary link I quoted above!

My personal view is that it is possible to be a victim of DV without having experienced physical harm.

Domestic Abuse maybe – you might have avoided the argument if you’d used that term, but I guess it would also have made your point weaker. I’m not sure any normal of definition of violence doesn’t include physical harm. I suppose DV might just about extend to fear of physical harm, or maybe somebody throwing plates around, but I don’t think there’s any suggestion of that in this case. In fact I don’t believe there is any suggestion of domestic abuse of any form, making your original assertion a bit of a strawman.

BTW I’m still interested in what fsf said that you thought backed up your point, as I’m still missing it.

I left it to the jury to decide.

Perhaps you should too.

Already done that for you, thanks.

Clearly the jury have decided that any coercion involved was insufficient to pass a test in law.

So what’s your problem then ? 🙄

Already done that for you, thanks.

Did you realise that before or after your comment about DV – which you apparently agree that the jury has decided is a strawman?

It’ll be a movie soon, [strong american movie announcer voice]
WHEN ARSEHOLES COLLIDE!!!
“He was an arsehole politician who lost it all trying to avoid the Law” “She was a conniving arsehole who tried to stitch him up after they divorced” See ON SCREEN.. the tears.. The pain… The lies.. The irony..
SEE HOW IT COMES TO A DRAMATIC CONCLUSION AT A CINEMA NEAR YOU SOON…

That you seem to be saying that someone having a certain level of professional status and salary somehow made it hard to believe that they woudl be the victim of domestic Abuse/Violence.

Just that really.

I’m not saying she was in this case, just that anyones standing outside the home would have relatively little to do with what might happen within it.

[edit] aracer I’m making a wider point about DA/DV than this case. Just because you have a good job, are middle class and present a good face tot he world does not mean you are not able to be the victim. Seems fairly simple. I accept the jury decision in this case. It’s the wider implications of the initial assumption about status v DA/DV thjat Ernie made that I commented on.

They are both nasty pieces of work and both deserve the slammer.

That you seem to be saying that someone having a certain level of professional status and salary somehow made it hard to believe that they woudl be the victim of domestic Abuse/Violence.

My point was that, as she appears to be a strong and determined woman, then I can’t say I’m surprised by the jury’s verdict. The fact that she has reached the very top of her profession, and that she was clearly determined to destroy her husband’s political career, suggests precisely that – a strong and determined woman.

But please forgive me for ‘not being surprised’ 🙄

I’m making a wider point about DA/DV than this case. Just because you have a good job, are middle class and present a good face tot he world does not mean you are not able to be the victim.

That’s a very valid point. But you attempted to make it by implying that Ms Pryce, with her list of accomplishments and jobs, and her obvious unwillingness to be a victim might also have been subject to DV. She’s just about as far from who most people would describe as “have a good job, are middle class” as the unemployed living on a council estate are. I’d suggest that her level of status and the assertiveness she clearly required to climb that high does make her rather unlikely to be a victim.

Edit: I still agree completely with ernie on this – it’s not that she had a decent job and salary, but that her professional status means she clearly is as ernie describes “strong and determined” – not the typical traits of somebody who’s a victim of DV, no matter how good a public face they might present.

Huhne himself has, of course, turned out to be yet another lying and bullying self-promoter who was trying to play the nice guy.

Pryce has turned out to be a ridiculous, humourless, bitter harridan who’s only form of any gratification is to take him down.

Shame they’re both going to gaol as they are made for each other.

I’m making a wider point about DA/DV than this case. Just because you have a good job, are middle class and present a good face tot he world does not mean you are not able to be the victim

True but as far as I am aware she made no claims about domestic violence or abuse in her defence so it would seem a rather pointless debate

My take bitter ex wife [ cant blame her he seems a bit odious tbh]decides to ruin ex husbands career and in the process shoots herself in the foot.

Whether he forced or she agreed who knows but the jury have decided. I suspect she wil get worse and i suspect [ though have no evidence for this it is just a hunch] she agreed willingingly then try to “get him” post divorce

Is also starnge that it is a defence only open to the wives in a married heterosexual couple. It is not a defence available to males or those in a civil partnership because , I assume, they cannot be bullied 🙄

Why didnt Huhne just take the points? He was a well respected MP to his voters.

He would have lost his licence, at the time he was an MEP and standing to be the candidate as an prospectus MP for the sedfield ?? and thought loosing his licence wouold cost him his chance.

His reasons have been extensively covered in the media

Is also starnge that it is a defence only open to the wives in a married heterosexual couple. It is not a defence available to males or those in a civil partnership because , I assume, they cannot be bullied

Will it be available as a defence for those in same sex marriages, or only women in same sex marriages?

I pleased they are both being found guilty and I hope the CPS get the money back Huhne wasted in trying to get the case thrown out.
The fact that this goes back to 2003 shows us that people like them will lie for as long as they can to protect themselves, I not so sure the MP would go that far for his constituents.

As for her, she’s a proper pillock for thinking she would be found not guilty, I would agree with Ernies take on her. Do they think because they have so much power and wealth that they will get off??

Whatever, I hope now they get decent sentences, sadly they will probably serve most of it on licence back home free to make money out of interviews or after dinner wafflebolloxs.

I suspect that the judge is going to enjoy sentencing in this case – 2 people twisting, turning and lying to evade justice and using, in one case, his considerable wealth to try to avoid being held to account.

There is also the other person arrested in this case – it cannot be career enhancing for a judge to be arrested for attempting to pervert the course of justice and being referred to in court as someone who would not able to be a witness to the truth.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/9912373/Judge-Constance-Briscoe-could-be-prosecuted-for-lying-to-police-about-role-in-exposing-Chris-Huhne.html

“Persuade” and “coerce” are not synonyms

erm yeah i know didn’t think I suggested they were

As a wider point – it’s an inherently sexist defence, as it’s not available to men.

that true? Sexist buggers them judges eh?

Ok its decison time and sentencing today
Not sure who wil get most but expect both to be sent down

he perjured himself effectively but only in the court of public opinion and fought tooth and nail to defend something he knew was true

She took revenge to an extreme level and did not admit her guilt

Will be interesting to see who gets what tbh.

Will it be available as a defence for those in same sex marriages, or only women in same sex marriages?

Tough call this as I am not sure whther the point is that men are overpowering bullies or women are weak and easily manipulated…who knows which same sex partnership will get it 😉

Will it be available as a defence for those in same sex marriages, or only women in same sex marriages?

Talking to a barrister mate over the weekned, he suggested she’d had pretty appalling advice, marital coercion doesn’t have a good track record for defence, and hasn’t been used successfully for years.

Tough call this as I am not sure whther the point is that men are overpowering bullies or women are weak and easily manipulated…who knows which same sex partnership will get it

Would this make the handkerchief code legally binding?

Talking to a barrister mate over the weekned, he suggested she’d had pretty appalling advice, marital coercion doesn’t have a good track record for defence, and hasn’t been used successfully for years.

Yeah, you’d only try to bring it out if you had absolutely FA else to say.