The Pryce of Public Image
There was something satisfying in the news that both Vicky Pryce and ex-husband Chris Huhne have been charged with perverting the course of justice.
Not because I think we should be wasting our time or the tax-payer's money on speeding points issued over eight years ago. But because Miss Pryce took great pleasure in leaking to the media that she would "swear on oath" that he asked her to accept speeding points for her. Yet at no stage in any of the Daily Mail articles I am ashamed to admit reading, did anyone point out that- er, doesn't that make her also guilty of some sort of crime?
Aside from that, perhaps I'm alone in thinking the entire trial is a pointless exercise. It's not that I think people should go around being allowed to accept points on someone's behalf, or that in general criminals should get away with something just because it happened a decade ago. But the combination of a fairly trivial non-recordable offence with a lie told by a wife to protect her husband from a small increase in insurance premium and the threat of a short driving ban, AND that it happened nearly a decade ago... I mean, really?
The only thing that really justifies any sort of prosecution is Miss Pryce's attempt to use it to discredit and humiliate her MP husband. I think most of us were probably thinking, if after years of marriage THAT is the only thing she can think of to make him look bad, the man is a saint.
Oh, how I will laugh if she is found guilty and he walks free.
Has the Crown Prosecution Service over-looked this vital clue? It WAS her driving!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Diary of an On-Call Girl' is available in some bookstores and online.
posted by PC Bloggs at 16:10
9 Comments:
Speeding is a minor offense. Perverting the course of justice isn't. I'm surprised you think otherwise.
21 February, 2012 19:12
Course one might also say that perhaps Ms Pryce was blinded by anger at her husband of 30 years or so running of with a lesbian lover and didn't consider the consequences properly at the time....
Apparantly Huhne told her out of the blue he was leaving, 30 minutes before a tabloid published information about his affair, and then he went to the gym.
Classy way to treat the mother of your children.
Even if he didn't love her anymore, there are ways and ways to break up!
22 February, 2012 13:55
Ted- pelase re-read the middle two paragraphs? Not sure I say anywhere that perverting the course of justice isn't a serious offence.
23 February, 2012 16:49
Perhaps it was the phrases "the entire trial is a pointless exercise" and "a fairly trivial non-recordable offence" that gave the impression you thought perverting the course of justice to be trivial and the prosecution for it pointless.
24 February, 2012 10:16
You couldn't make it up. Next you'll be telling me that they spent £10 million chasing a football manager for £200k in tax ... oh wait .. errr...
24 February, 2012 12:46
Speeding IS a trivial non-recordable offence.
25 February, 2012 17:28
Speeding is only 'trivial' up to the point that the car traveling at excess speed kills your loved one. The police should enforce the law fairly and firmly just as the public should not pick and choose which laws they want to obey.
26 February, 2012 19:25
"the car traveling at excess speed kills your loved one" - this is potentially death by careless or dangerous driving, a more serious offence. Speeding is not a criminal offence, which is an indication of its seriousness.
The public should absolutely pick and choose what laws to obey, that's a free society. The police pick and choose which laws to enforce, partly because they can't enforce it all, and also because this is called discretion. Within certain boundaries, these are the fundamentals what it means to live in our country.
01 March, 2012 10:46
Ah! That old 'speeding is trivial' argument! Interesting really - who decides when speeding is trivial, and when it is not? Who says that it is okay to travel at 50mph instead of 30mph? Is it okay for an experienced 40yr old to drive at that speed, but not a 17yr old new driver? How to differentiate....?? I know - make a common limit that accounts for the lowest common denominator. Call it a speed limit. And try to save one life. Just one.
I'm sorry, but there is nothing trivial about speeding, and it's wrong to suggest otherwise. We cannot police 'inappropriate' speed, so we're stuck with limits.
22 May, 2012 10:48
Post a Comment
<< Home