I've never liked Chris Huhne, but this story is just very sad. Especially the texts of his 18 year old son getting released, and the ones in the article are the nicer ones :(
But I think it made it clear just how human politics still is, especially when you add in the wife out to destroy him after an affair.
QuoteChris Huhne: how a high-flying cabinet minister was undone
Political heavyweight finally forced to accept consequences of his actions after a decade of deceit, deception and denial
Caroline Davies
The Guardian, Monday 4 February 2013 20.45 GMT
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2FGU_front_gifs%2F2013%2F2%2F4%2F1360010593605%2FFormer-energy-secretary-C-010.jpg&hash=9d361c12b3b9b7ce09fbda88b719c8026e7ac06d)
Chris Huhne outside Southwark crown court after the former energy secretary pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice over allegations that he persuaded his then wife to take the blame for a speeding offence. Photograph: Olivia Harris/Reuters
It was late and Chris Huhne, then an MEP, was making his way home after three days sitting in the European parliament in Strasbourg. His Ryanair flight to Stansted landed at 10.27pm on 12 March 2003. There, his black BMW, with its personalised H11HNE plates, was parked, for free, in the airport car park.
As usual, he drove the 40 miles back to the family home in Clapham, south London. This was his routine, month in, month out. He could have had no notion he was about to make a decision that would, ultimately, bring about the destruction of his political career, his family and his reputation.
An impatient driver, with a tendency for speeding and nine points already on his licence, he put his foot down that night. The speed camera on the M11 clocked his car at 11.23pm, some 21 miles south of the airport, and travelling at 69 mph. He was 19 miles over the 50 mph limit – enough to get him three penalty points.
It would be a full 10 years before Huhne, 58, would be forced to accept the consequences of his actions after that night. As is now clear from his guilty plea, he never accepted the points that resulted from his speeding. His then wife, Vicky Pryce, an economist, took the points.
By the time the speeding allegations first surfaced in the media in May 2011, Huhne had become not only the Liberal Democrat MP for Eastleigh in Hampshire, but had joined the cabinet as secretary of state for energy and climate change. The Sorbonne and Oxford-educated politician, who gained a first in philosophy, politics and economics at Magdalen and earned a fortune in the City after a spell as a financial journalist with the Guardian, Independent and Independent on Sunday, had been tipped as a successor to Nick Clegg, who had narrowly defeated him for the Lib Dem leadership.
By the time the allegations were published, and Essex police began an investigation that would led ultimately lead them both to the dock at Southwark crown court, Pryce was no longer his wife. He had left her after a Sunday newspaper had discovered his affair with his PR adviser Carina Trimingham, who was watching from the public gallerytoday. After a 26-year marriage, the Huhne's divorce was finalised in January 2011. They have three children and Pryce has two from a previous marriage.
That Huhne was prepared to lie, again and again, to save his skin, is now evident. From the moment the Sunday Times and Mail on Sunday ran articles on 8 May 2011, alleging he had asked "someone close to him" to take the points, he issued denial after denial.
The claims were "completely untrue", he said of the media stories. When the matter was referred to the police, they were "simply incorrect", he said, adding that he welcomed police involvement. After being charged, in February 2012, he declared: "I am innocent." He would "fight this in the courts", he added.
And fight he did, right to the bitter end, to prevent the case coming before a jury. Only at the 11th hour, on the actual morning of his trial, did he finally utter the word "guilty".
The prosecution case was that it was "implausible" that anyone but Huhne could have been the driver on that night.
The Huhnes were a two-car family; he acquired a BMW in 1998, while Pryce had a Volvo, though she was also insured to drive his car.
At the time of the offence, he attended parliamentary sessions every month, usually flying out at 6.50am on a Monday to return, preferably on Wednesday night, though sometimes on Thursday. The usual arrangement was that Huhne would drive the BMW to the airport, park it in his free parking space, pick it up on his return and drive it home. The timings of the speeding offence fitted exactly with that routine.
Why, the prosecution questioned, would his wife collect him? Indeed, Huhne himself had told police that he could not remember any occasion where his wife, who hitherto had a clean licence, had collected him.
As Andrew Edis QC, prosecuting, stated in pre-trial hearings – which can only now be reported – it was an "85‑mile round trip" for her, and "not a particularly easy journey".
On that particular night, Pryce was part of a panel at a large function at the London School of Economics, which finished between 7.30pm and 8pm. There was a dinner for the panel and guests afterwards, but none of the witnesses were able to recall whether she stayed for that.
Given that it was difficult for Huhne to get to the airport by public transport to catch his early-morning flight on the Monday, it was likely he drove, as usual – which would have meant her travelling to the airport by public transport in order to drive him home, the crown claimed.
"It was a routine Wednesday night. Why would she make the journey by tube and rail to Stansted?" queried Edis, especially when she had young children at home.
Or, if he had not taken the car to the airport, she had driven an 80-odd mile round trip, which was "senseless and pointless". It would have been unusual, and also memorable. Yet Huhne had always insisted he had no memory of that night at all, the court heard.
Evidence from texts between Huhne and the couple's youngest son, Peter, then 18, were also examined as he fought for his case to be dismissed. They revealed in excruciating and painful detail the toll this was taking on Huhne's family life.
One exchange took place on May 21 2011 – just three days before police were due to interview Huhne and Pryce. In it, Peter told his father: "We all know that you were driving and you put pressure on Mum. Accept it or face the consequences. You've told me that was the case. Or will this be another lie?"
The MP responded: "I have no intention of sending Mum to Holloway Prison for three months. Dad".
His son replied: "Are you going to accept your responsibility or do I have to contact the police and tell them what you told me?"
Why had Huhne never texted an outright denial? John Kelsey-Fry QC, Huhne's barrister, sought to explain the texts had to be taken in the context of the relationship between father and son having completely broken down after the marriage split.
The teenager did not want to see or speak to his father and the only way Huhne could reach out to him was through texts. Invariably he received obscenities back.
A Christmas text from Huhne, "Happy Christmas. Love you, Dad", received the reply: "Well I hate you, so fuck off." Another, in which Huhne proclaimed pride in his son getting a place at St Peter's College, Oxford, was met with "... you have no place in my life and no right to be proud ... you are such an autistic piece of shit. Don't contact me again you make me feel sick". Huhne had replied to the texts as he did because he did not want to "inflame" the situation, said his lawyer.
Huhne's lawyer argued the case against him was "at best gossamer thin" with no evidence of him having participated in any crime. Urging the judge to dismiss it, he said "extensive and extreme" adverse publicity meant Huhne could not have a fair trial.
Waving aloft examples, Kelsey-Fry pointed to one quoting a government official saying that they expected "Huhne to get away with it" if no evidence was found. Another quoted a senior Lib Dem official saying Huhne would "brazen it out". Online comments by readers were full of phrases such as he was "going to get away with it".
The Sunday Times even ran a YouGov poll showing that 60% of people thought him guilty. "This isn't only trial by media," said the lawyer, "they have also published a verdict."
But, said Edis, such a publicity circus cannot mean "that a cabinet minister cannot be tried for a crime".
Legal arguments took days, with a ban on reporting at the time to avoid prejudicing Huhne's trial. Huhne applied both for an application for dismissal and an application for abuse of process to get the case against him thrown out.
The judge refused both.
Official forms concerning the speeding incident were sent to the Huhne family home in Clapham on 25 March 2003. Just three days later Huhne was spotted by police officers using his mobile phone while driving on the Old Kent Road – an offence that would lead to him being banned for six months. The forms relating to the M11 were returned to Essex police on 23 April, saying Pryce had been behind the wheel.
Quite when Huhne decided to come clean is not known. Certainly, he entered a not-guilty plea at a hearing on Monday last week.
It is understood that he told close family and friends of his intention to change his plea during a series of difficult conversations over the weekend.
As he contemplated a prison sentence on Monday, he must also contemplate a new future, having confided in friends that he does not plan to pursue any further career in politics.
QuoteHe had left her after a Sunday newspaper had discovered his affair with his PR adviser Carina Trimingham,
:lol: Awesome.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 09:04:12 PM
QuoteHe had left her after a Sunday newspaper had discovered his affair with his PR adviser Carina Trimingham,
:lol: Awesome.
man, if you're going to ruin your career and marriage aim higher. Dude in a dress.
Quote from: HVC on February 05, 2013, 09:20:06 PM
man, if you're going to ruin your career and marriage aim higher. Dude in a dress.
Yeah, total uggo. But a classic Brit situational-specific name.
"I'd like to introduce my fellow urologist, Dr. Stephen Scrotumsworth."
Dude perjured himself out of a cabinet position over three points on his license? :huh:
Perjury aside, does Scotland Yard really not have anything better to do with its time than investigate 8 year old speeding tickets?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 05, 2013, 09:23:35 PM
Yeah, total uggo. But a classic Brit situational-specific name.
"I'd like to introduce my fellow urologist, Dr. Stephen Scrotumsworth."
Looks amazingly like a Pythoner pepperpot. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 09:45:14 AM
Dude perjured himself out of a cabinet position over three points on his license? :huh:
He had enough points that he would've lost his license.
I'm waiting for all the critics of Clinton's impeachment to defend this guy too.
^_^
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 12:00:03 PM
I'm waiting for all the critics of Clinton's impeachment to defend this guy too.
^_^
British people are just a bunch of prudes. They do not accept sex like us worldly Americans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 12:00:03 PM
I'm waiting for all the critics of Clinton's impeachment to defend this guy too.
^_^
I'm waiting for all the Hoya fans to defend this guy too.
^_^
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2013, 12:02:51 PM
British people are just a bunch of prudes. They do not accept sex like us worldly Americans.
Funny thing is he had an affair and then divorced his wife over it while in office. No one cared but his vengeful wife :ph34r:
QuotePerjury aside, does Scotland Yard really not have anything better to do with its time than investigate 8 year old speeding tickets?
Well they got credible allegations that he'd committed a crime and got someone else to confess and take the punishment. I think that's a fair reason to investigate.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2013, 12:00:03 PM
I'm waiting for all the critics of Clinton's impeachment to defend this guy too.
^_^
Why would you expect that?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2013, 10:49:32 PM
Why would you expect that?
Clinton got impeached "for a blow job."
This dude lost his job "for a speeding ticket."
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 06, 2013, 08:16:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2013, 12:02:51 PM
British people are just a bunch of prudes. They do not accept sex like us worldly Americans.
Funny thing is he had an affair and then divorced his wife over it while in office. No one cared but his vengeful wife :ph34r:
QuotePerjury aside, does Scotland Yard really not have anything better to do with its time than investigate 8 year old speeding tickets?
Well they got credible allegations that he'd committed a crime and got someone else to confess and take the punishment. I think that's a fair reason to investigate.
Yeah, and if the crime in question was, say, armed robbery, and the punishment had been 10 years or so in prison, of course they'd investigate. But the crime was a traffic offense, and the punishment was 3 point on her driver's license and I assume a small fine. Would they have bothered if he'd been some unknown everyman, and not a prominent politician?
He was not charged with a driving offence. Not sure why people keep missing this.
I'm pretty sure that if he'd been an ordinary Joe he would have been charged.
He perverted the course of justice over a petty speeding offence. The pettiness of the original offence highlights his lack of principles.
Lucky for the coalition Huhne never made Lib Dem leader, though I suspect there may have been rumblings about his dalliances that prevented that.
Irrelevant to the case, but I'm surprised Languish didn't pick up on the fact that Ms Trimingham is bisexual.
Is she now?
Whoops, just saw her pic. Lost interest.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2013, 09:19:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2013, 10:49:32 PM
Why would you expect that?
Clinton got impeached "for a blow job."
This dude lost his job "for a speeding ticket."
Uh, huh. Whatever you say.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2013, 09:19:42 AMClinton got impeached "for a blow job."
This dude lost his job "for a speeding ticket."
Seems to me the difference is that getting a blow job is not illegal and not anybody else's business (outside the private sphere), whereas driving too fast is in fact illegal and should be dealt with by the authorities according to the law.
Lying about getting a blow job is excusable because you shouldn't be asked about whether you got a blow job to begin with.
Quote from: dps on February 07, 2013, 09:24:51 AM
Yeah, and if the crime in question was, say, armed robbery, and the punishment had been 10 years or so in prison, of course they'd investigate. But the crime was a traffic offense, and the punishment was 3 point on her driver's license and I assume a small fine. Would they have bothered if he'd been some unknown everyman, and not a prominent politician?
The crime was perverting the course of justice and, theoretically, can carry a life sentence. They only investigated the speeding offence because that was necessary for the crime they had allegations about. He hasn't received the 3 points on his license, but he could receive prison time (and the judge seemed to hint at that) or a very large fine.
I think they would've bothered if he was unknown.
QuoteSeems to me the difference is that getting a blow job is not illegal and not anybody else's business (outside the private sphere), whereas driving too fast is in fact illegal and should be dealt with by the authorities according to the law.
But the issue isn't the speeding. It's getting someone else to take his punishment.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2013, 01:54:53 PM
Seems to me the difference is that getting a blow job is not illegal and not anybody else's business (outside the private sphere), whereas driving too fast is in fact illegal and should be dealt with by the authorities according to the law.
Lying about getting a blow job is excusable because you shouldn't be asked about whether you got a blow job to begin with.
While I disagree with the conclusion that lying under oath is excusable under certain conditions, I do appreciate the fact you engaged with the issue. :cheers:
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2013, 01:54:53 PM
Lying about getting a blow job is excusable because you shouldn't be asked about whether you got a blow job to begin with.
Close but no cigar.
If he should not be asked the question then he should have refused to answer on that basis, rather than lying under oath.
In fairness Huhne didn't lie under oath, it never got that far. Perverting the course of justice (though I've not read up on it) covers things like jury intimidation, fabricating evidence, getting someone to take a charge for you.
I agree with Jacob. I think you could support the impeachment, but it seems reasonable look at the nature of the perjury when considering whether it's a 'high crime or misdemeanor'.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2013, 02:24:33 PM
I agree with Jacob. I think you could support the impeachment, but it seems reasonable look at the nature of the perjury when considering whether it's a 'high crime or misdemeanor'.
That is a different test from whether lying under oath is excusable. It never is. Your question is different - although inexusable does it rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor or is it something less.
Agreed. But I think the context of the perjury matters in judging whether it's a high crime or misdemeanor.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2013, 02:29:54 PM
Agreed. But I think the context of the perjury matters in judging whether it's a high crime or misdemeanor.
You and I are saying the same thing. My only issue is with the word "excusable". It is never excusable - the only issue is what penalty should attach.
I actually agree with you CC and AY that lying under oath is not acceptable excusable. I'm just saying that that's the primary difference between the Clinton affair and Huhne one - what they lied about (a private matter vs breaking the law) and how they came to lie about it (a politically motivated investigation pursuing stuff outside of the public interest vs the facts of law-breaking surfacing without partisan involvement).
I didn't particularly follow American politics at the time of the Clinton impeachment process, nor am I that well versed in the particulars of that process. Should Clinton have been removed from office, but was not due to some sort of corruption or miscarriage of justice? Or was due process followed and Clinton remained in office because lying under oath under these particular circumstances did not warrant removing him?
My impression is that impeachment essentially comes down to "due to these particular transgressions we trigger a vote to remove the president, but whether he should remain in office comes down to the results of that vote"; i.e. the conditions for triggering impeachment, like lying under oath, is not enough to remove a president in and off itself - those conditions also need to change the political enough that the vote in question is lost. Is that accurate, or am I way off?
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2013, 02:38:36 PM
Is that accurate, or am I way off?
I'm having trouble figuring out what it means.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2013, 02:44:55 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2013, 02:38:36 PM
Is that accurate, or am I way off?
I'm having trouble figuring out what it means.
I think the question is if there's a vote to proceed with the investigation/trial and then a separate vote to actually remove him and that's all covered under 'impeachment'? That's roughly my understanding and so I think Clinton's perjury can justify part one, but not part two.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2013, 02:49:41 PM
I think the question is if there's a vote to proceed with the investigation/trial and then a separate vote to actually remove him and that's all covered under 'impeachment'? That's roughly my understanding and so I think Clinton's perjury can justify part one, but not part two.
The first step, the actual impeachment vote, is conducted by the House. If the House votes impeachment, then it goes to the Senate to kick him out of office or not. AFAIK there aren't any different standard in the two votes.
No vote to proceed with the investigation as far as I know. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor is taken solely by the president.
So what's the House vote for? My understanding was that they vote the allegations and then the Senate effectively act as a court?
Which is why in my view I can see why the House could vote for impeachment, but the Senate then vote against it - and both be right. There's allegations the House things are impeachable and then the Senate can decide whether or not to impeach/convict him.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2013, 03:08:10 PM
So what's the House vote for? My understanding was that they vote the allegations and then the Senate effectively act as a court?
Which is why in my view I can see why the House could vote for impeachment, but the Senate then vote against it - and both be right. There's allegations the House things are impeachable and then the Senate can decide whether or not to impeach/convict him.
Checks and balances??
It could be that you and Jake are right. I always thought the House voted death and the Senate didn't because House had a bigger GOP majority and the Senate tends to mellow out its members.
To Chris Huhne, here's for trying to be too clever by half. :nelson:
Of course that's precisely the role of the Senate, to be a deliberative chamber. It's possibly why the modern influx of ex-House members has increased the polarisation. Looking it up the Senate needs a two-thirds majority for impeachment which also seems a bit like a sort-of higher burden of legislative proof.
QuoteChecks and balances??
What?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2013, 03:25:32 PM
What?
If two chambers have to vote to pass, it makes it harder. Checks and balances are built into the US system so no one institution can accumulate too much power.
Yeah. I didn't get what you meant about them though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2013, 02:44:55 PM
I'm having trouble figuring out what it means.
I'm trying to understand what you mean by defending Clinton while also trying to fill in the gaps in my knowledge about the process.
Is saying "Clinton lied under oath and that was bad (inexcusable, even), but given the context it did not warrant removing him from office; there was a due process and it came up right" defending Clinton? Is it factually true?
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2013, 03:54:27 PM
I'm trying to understand what you mean by defending Clinton while also trying to fill in the gaps in my knowledge about the process.
Is saying "Clinton lied under oath and that was bad (inexcusable, even), but given the context it did not warrant removing him from office; there was a due process and it came up right" defending Clinton? Is it factually true?
I think you're imputing a deterministic element to the impeachment process that isn't there. The Senators didn't pore through law books to find out if perjury was sufficient grounds for impeachment; it was essentially a political decision.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2013, 03:58:41 PM
I think you're imputing a deterministic element to the impeachment process that isn't there. The Senators didn't pore through law books to find out if perjury was sufficient grounds for impeachment; it was essentially a political decision.
Okay. But I'm imagining there aren't sentencing recommendations for Presidential impeachments. So how is what they did different than a judge deciding, based on the circumstances, the sentence to impose? Given that the only sentence available is very high wouldn't they want to be convinced that it was a crime worthy of the punishment?
It's also worth saying that Huhne resigned from the cabinet once the CPS decided to prosecute, but he's now resigned from Parliament.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2013, 04:04:20 PM
Given that the only sentence available is very high wouldn't they want to be convinced that it was a crime worthy of the punishment?
I imagine. But they had no one to turn to besides their own judgement.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2013, 03:58:41 PMI think you're imputing a deterministic element to the impeachment process that isn't there. The Senators didn't pore through law books to find out if perjury was sufficient grounds for impeachment; it was essentially a political decision.
Yeah I get that. But if Clinton had been doing something much worse - I don't know, transferring nuclear missiles to Iran and North Korea in return while personally murdering little children in the spare bedroom - the political decision would have been different.
In the end, removing the president of the US from office is a political decision not a legalistic one and that is - I think - as it should be.
Should Ken Starr have been asking Clinton about his sex life? No.
Should Clinton have lied about it under oath? No.
Should Clinton have been removed from the presidency for lying about a blow job? No.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2013, 04:16:31 PM
Yeah I get that. But if Clinton had been doing something much worse - I don't know, transferring nuclear missiles to Iran and North Korea in return while personally murdering little children in the spare bedroom - the political decision would have been different.
In the end, removing the president of the US from office is a political decision not a legalistic one and that is - I think - as it should be.
Should Ken Starr have been asking Clinton about his sex life? No.
Should Clinton have lied about it under oath? No.
Should Clinton have been removed from the presidency for lying about a blow job? No.
Should Clinton have conspired to impede the Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation?
Oh God. We are not really going to go over this nonsense again are we?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2013, 04:20:15 PMShould Clinton have conspired to impede the Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation?
I don't know anything about that. Probably not :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2013, 04:04:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2013, 03:58:41 PM
I think you're imputing a deterministic element to the impeachment process that isn't there. The Senators didn't pore through law books to find out if perjury was sufficient grounds for impeachment; it was essentially a political decision.
Okay. But I'm imagining there aren't sentencing recommendations for Presidential impeachments. So how is what they did different than a judge deciding, based on the circumstances, the sentence to impose? Given that the only sentence available is very high wouldn't they want to be convinced that it was a crime worthy of the punishment?
Ok, let me address this. Not the particulars of the Clinton case, but how impeachment works wrt the US Federal governmant.
When the House votes to impeachment, it's akin to a Grand Jury handing down an indictment. If the House does vote to impeach, then the proceedings in the Senate are the actual trial, and vote in the Senate is on the gulity or innocence of the defendent (who isn't necessarily the President, but could be anyone holding a Federal office).
The Lib Dems subsequently got hit by a sort-of sex scandal, the Pryce trial ended after the Judge dismissed the jury following some perhaps worrying questions from them and the re-trial's just started.
But the Lib Dems held the seat and UKIP surged into second place, Tories third which is provoking a mini-crisis:
QuoteEastleigh byelection: Clegg hails 'stunning' victory for Lib Dems
Deputy PM says 'We can be a party of government and still win', while Ukip leader says 'Cameron is going to be cheesed off'
Steven Morris in Eastleigh
guardian.co.uk, Friday 1 March 2013 14.38 GMT
The Liberal Democrats chose one of their iconic local projects for their victory speeches: the home of Hampshire county cricket club. Ukip opted for the more modest cornershop in the centre of Eastleigh that has become their base and a focal point for much of the colour of this whirlwind of a byelection to celebrate their runnerup spot.
Nick Clegg was making his sixth visit to Hampshire. At the Aegeas Bowl, as groundsmen prepared the cricket square and outfield for the new season, he began by thanking the people of Eastleigh for their patience.
They could, he said, now take the tape off their postboxes because no more leaflets would be dropped through; they could answer their phone without worrying it was going to be a pollster.
Clegg said it had been a brilliantly fought campaign. "This has been a byelection we have had to fight in exceptionally difficult circumstances.
"Our opponents have thrown everything at us. We held our nerve, we stood our ground, we worked as a team ... We overcame the odds and won a stunning victory."
The deputy prime minister said there was a simple message: "We can be a party of government and still win ... When we entered into coalition with the Conservatives, our critics said we were going to lose our soul, lose our value, lose our identity, lose our ability to win. And last night we proved those critics are emphatically wrong."
Stranding beside the new MP, Mike Thornton, Clegg said the campaign had showed people how they could win by campaigning on a mix of local and national issues – for instance, cuts in council tax and in income tax; by encouraging new jobs with local projects (such as the Lib Dem-controlled council's decision to buy the cricket stadium and build a new hotel overlooking it) and with national programmes such as the drive to create more apprenticeships across the country.
Local party bigwigs were thrilled. Keith House, the agent and architect of the campaign, said: "It was bruising. It really tested us but sometimes it's good to be tested. We've had every message, every policy properly tested and we've come out on top."
Minutes later, in the Ukip town centre shop, leader Nigel Farage was just as upbeat. He said the party had "really connected" with voters. "That's because we're talking about issues the other parties would prefer to brush under the carpet."
Farage did not try to contain his glee that Ukip's second place would have damaged David Cameron. He has not forgiven him for describing Ukip as "loonies".
"David Cameron is going to be cheesed off," said Farage. "Traditional Tory voters in this constituency don't believe he's a Conservative; that's why he's done badly."
Farage is already dreaming of even greater success in the European elections: "It's my intention to lead this party into the European elections next year where I think we can cause a real earthquake. I think we can come first. My intention is to win those elections nationally." He warned Cameron: "Call a referendum before the next election or get wiped out."
Farage also had a decent line that if Cameron wasn't splitting the conservative vote they would've beaten the Lib Dems :lol:
So the LibDems are now 'New Conservative' and UKIP is the 'Old Tories' ?
And the wife's also been convicted. Sentencing soon, both apparently were warned by the Judge that they'd probably be jailed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/07/vicky-pryce-convicted-chris-huhne
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 07, 2013, 09:05:42 PM
And the wife's also been convicted. Sentencing soon, both apparently were warned by the Judge that they'd probably be jailed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/07/vicky-pryce-convicted-chris-huhne
It's almost 'Greek' isn't it.
Though I hope they don't trash too much of their shared financial resources, as the truly innocent, the children, shouldn't suffer.
Hope she gets more jail time then him.
Quote from: HVC on March 07, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Hope she gets more jail time then him.
I hope not. She revealed the crime.
QuoteIt's almost 'Greek' isn't it.
It's another emotional register than any other political scandal I can think of. You just feel very sorry for everyone and at times it's felt very much like intruding on personal grief - Huhne's text messages to his son. It's very sad.
Quote from: HVC on March 07, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Hope she gets more jail time then him.
No, A woman scorned has the right to seek revenge, though that not to say she shouldn't be jailed for the original offence.
I don't think you can jail someone to extra time just because they carried out an entirely legal form of revenge.
Snitches get stitches.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 07, 2013, 09:18:23 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 07, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Hope she gets more jail time then him.
I hope not. She revealed the crime.
. Not for moral reasons. She tried to ruin his life for vindictive reasons. She gets no sympathy from me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 07, 2013, 09:18:23 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 07, 2013, 09:15:10 PM
Hope she gets more jail time then him.
I hope not. She revealed the crime.
QuoteIt's almost 'Greek' isn't it.
It's another emotional register than any other political scandal I can think of. You just feel very sorry for everyone and at times it's felt very much like intruding on personal grief - Huhne's text messages to his son. It's very sad.
Yes, the breakdown in family relations is particularly sad, I hope Huhne is punished, but lets remember he's not in the same league as Archer or Jonathan Aiken.
Quote from: mongers on March 07, 2013, 09:19:18 PM
No, A woman scorned has the right to seek revenge, though that not to say she shouldn't be jailed for the original offence.
I don't think you can jail someone to extra time just because they carried out an entirely legal form of revenge.
Did you miss the part where she originally tried to spin it so he pawned off his points on an aide? Got her judge buddy busted trying twice to edit herself out of the story? Legal seems a pretty strong choice of words, methinks.
Quote from: mongers on March 07, 2013, 09:08:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 07, 2013, 09:05:42 PM
And the wife's also been convicted. Sentencing soon, both apparently were warned by the Judge that they'd probably be jailed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/07/vicky-pryce-convicted-chris-huhne
It's almost 'Greek' isn't it.
Though I hope they don't trash too much of their shared financial resources, as the truly innocent, the children, shouldn't suffer.
Pun intended? She's from Greece. Must admit being a bit surprised at the verdict, but maybe it could be a cultural thing re the marriage coercion. Ironic that she's an economist given the current troubles in Greece.
Quote from: PJL on March 08, 2013, 05:01:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on March 07, 2013, 09:08:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 07, 2013, 09:05:42 PM
And the wife's also been convicted. Sentencing soon, both apparently were warned by the Judge that they'd probably be jailed:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/07/vicky-pryce-convicted-chris-huhne
It's almost 'Greek' isn't it.
Though I hope they don't trash too much of their shared financial resources, as the truly innocent, the children, shouldn't suffer.
Pun intended? She's from Greece. Must admit being a bit surprised at the verdict, but maybe it could be a cultural thing re the marriage coercion. Ironic that she's an economist given the current troubles in Greece.
:ph34r:
Oxymoronic isn't it.
Both got 8 months.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 11, 2013, 01:12:06 PM
Both got 8 months.
There was a recent survey about this and 300,000 people admitted doing this and knowing in the region of ten other who'd also done it.
There's going to be a lot of people in marriages/relationships, now nervous about whether their current or former partners might seek to exact revenge, even if it means going down themselves.
Will there be a spate of copy-cat trials ?