Chris Huhne's wife, should we hate her?

msmancunia

It's bad, but it happens. Not every marriage lasts for ever. And if he cheated, then you've got to ask why. If it was because he was married someone who seems to have turned into a selfish, self-centred, manipulative woman, then I don't blame him, frankly.

Best thing for her to have done would have been to admit her part in it too - at least both of them could then look their kids in the eye.

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

suzyb wrote:

Yes. He cheated on her she has the right to f**k up his life as fully as she can / wishes to.

Sorry, but this is a very worrying outlook on life.

Plus one. We get way too hung up on how terrible cheating on someone is. It's bad but it isn't really that bad in the great scheme of things.

Never mind that, at the risk of sounding like a school teacher, whatever happened to "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Ben6899

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

suzyb wrote:

Yes. He cheated on her she has the right to f**k up his life as fully as she can / wishes to.

Sorry, but this is a very worrying outlook on life.

Plus one. We get way too hung up on how terrible cheating on someone is. It's bad but it isn't really that bad in the great scheme of things.

Never mind that, at the risk of sounding like a school teacher, whatever happened to "two wrongs don't make a right"?

That sentiment is the basis for my worry. Seriously, if we aimed to f*** up everyone who upset us along life's varied journey, then we (civilization) would be in a right sorry state.

It saddens me every time I see this mentality.

tailwindhome

You have to wonder how many Tory (and other MPs) who voted against gay marriage to preserve the sanctity of the institution have had affairs?

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

suzyb wrote:

Yes. He cheated on her she has the right to f**k up his life as fully as she can / wishes to.

Sorry, but this is a very worrying outlook on life.

Plus one. We get way too hung up on how terrible cheating on someone is. It's bad but it isn't really that bad in the great scheme of things.

Never mind that, at the risk of sounding like a school teacher, whatever happened to "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Oh yes - definitely. That mind set can be used to justify anything and it is pretty depressing.

I'm partly with DDD on this one. Neither are likeable people but the whole thing about her trying to imply that he coerced her is quite unpleasant.

The Rookie

gtvlusso wrote:

Ah - I thought you committed perjury if you lied to the clerk of the court? When you get a speeding thingy it goes to the clerk of the courts, you can either plead guilty and take the points/fine or not guilty and go to trial.

Basically no, the Police offer a fixed penalty and that gets returned to a police office who notify the courts of the 'result'.

As bad as each other....hope both go down, but based on previous results I predict suspended sentances unfortunatley!

rick_chasey

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

suzyb wrote:

Yes. He cheated on her she has the right to f**k up his life as fully as she can / wishes to.

Sorry, but this is a very worrying outlook on life.

Plus one. We get way too hung up on how terrible cheating on someone is. It's bad but it isn't really that bad in the great scheme of things.

Never mind that, at the risk of sounding like a school teacher, whatever happened to "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Oh yes - definitely. That mind set can be used to justify anything and it is pretty depressing.

I'm partly with DDD on this one. Neither are likeable people but the whole thing about her trying to imply that he coerced her is quite unpleasant.

Unless he did, of course.

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

I'm partly with DDD on this one. Neither are likeable people but the whole thing about her trying to imply that he coerced her is quite unpleasant.

Unless he did, of course.

True - except that it sounds like she reacted to the journo telling her to do this when she originally rang the paper up. And she doesn't seem like someone easy to coerce

cedargreen

Agree with those who question whether Huhne will be such a great loss. I didn't know much about him but after reading about him he comes across as a fairly typical member of the born-to-rule sociopathic elite. His BMW was caught speeding on the M11 as he returned from his (free) parking at Stanstead airport after flying back from Strasbourg when he was an MEP. After that, he became Minister for climate change; presumably on the basis that his frequent flying and heavy footed driving style meant he was doing more than most to change the climate. Christ only knows what he was doing in the city, where he apparently made loads of money. Presumably contributing to the financial sh*t we're all in now. He clearly thinks he's above the law and his only regret is that he's been found out. What exactly has he contributed to politics or public life? At some point we really will have to purge these self-serving parasites from positions of power. It won't be easy as they seem to be everywhere, and even the supposedly radical Guardian thinks his downfall is a tragedy.

wandsworth

jedster wrote:

I do think his ex-wife has behaved in a childish, foolish and irrational way in dragging this up - people cheat on each other, marriages fail, launching a vendetta to utterly ruin your ex and ruin his relationships with your children is utterly self-obsessed behaviour. Sensible parents would do EVERYTHING to keep their children out of the dispute not enlist them in your scheme of retribution.

I also think her defence of marital coercion lets down the whole of the female gender - she is a very bright, well educated and successful woman. There is no evidence that Huhn threatened her with violence. She had independent earning power. If she was not free and capable of making her own decision over taking the points then what wife would be? I think that's a disgrace and I'd be interested in what other women here think about it. In a way, using that defence is just as wrong as Huhn's lies.

From what I understand the defence is unlikely to work and there is a certain poetic justice that she is almost certainly going to get jail time too.

Completely agree. She's going to have a hard job convincing a jury that she was coerced.

I thought the saddest thing about this whole episode was the text exchange with the son. Some people referred to that as if it was a smoking gun, but the son's texts were as self-serving as the wife's attempt to record Huhne admitting to the offence. I think those texts tell us a lot more about the son than the father and what it tells us isn't good.

gtvlusso wrote:

As bad as each other....hope both go down, but based on previous results I predict suspended sentances unfortunatley!

The judge made pretty clear that Huhne could expect a jail sentence. If his wife is convicted she will face the same. Possibly more likely for her: he pleaded guilty (though at the last minute) and she didn't.

rjsterry

cedargreen wrote:

Agree with those who question whether Huhne will be such a great loss. I didn't know much about him but after reading about him he comes across as a fairly typical member of the born-to-rule sociopathic elite. His BMW was caught speeding on the M11 as he returned from his (free) parking at Stanstead airport after flying back from Strasbourg when he was an MEP. After that, he became Minister for climate change; presumably on the basis that his frequent flying and heavy footed driving style meant he was doing more than most to change the climate. Christ only knows what he was doing in the city, where he apparently made loads of money. Presumably contributing to the financial sh*t we're all in now. He clearly thinks he's above the law and his only regret is that he's been found out. What exactly has he contributed to politics or public life? At some point we really will have to purge these self-serving parasites from positions of power. It won't be easy as they seem to be everywhere, and even the supposedly radical Guardian thinks his downfall is a tragedy.

I think the argument was more about the damage the conviction of a standing MP does to the general perception of politicians. As this thread shows, that perception is pretty low as it is. For those MPs making a decent fist of representing their constituents, it must be pretty depressing.

bompington

wandsworth wrote:

I think those texts tell us a lot more about the son than the father and what it tells us isn't good.

From what I've seen, what the texts tell us about the son was that he was disgusted that his father was lying, cheating, and breaking the law. Exactly how does that reflect worse on the son than the father?

wandsworth

bompington wrote:

wandsworth wrote:

I think those texts tell us a lot more about the son than the father and what it tells us isn't good.

From what I've seen, what the texts tell us about the son was that he was disgusted that his father was lying, cheating, and breaking the law. Exactly how does that reflect worse on the son than the father?

It's understandable that he's angry and disgusted but he didn't just say he was disgusted, did he?

CH: Happy Christmas. I love you

PH: I hate you so f**k off.

CH: Well I’m proud and I love you, Dad.

PH: Leave me alone, you have no place in my life and no right to be proud. It’s irritating that you don’t seem to take the point. You are such an autistic piece of ****. Don’t contact me again you make me feel sick.

Why not just not respond?

BTW I'm not saying that the texts show that the son is worse than the father. My point was that the texts were being talked about as a smoking gun that "proved" the allegations against Huhne. They don't.

DonDaddyD

reckon some of his sons text messages were sent by the Mum or very heavily influenced by the mother. One text had the word "ghastly". What teenage-grown Man writes the word "ghastly" while in the midst of typing out a rage filled text message?

Still, its sad though...

From Chris Huhne,

"I understand that I have really offended you but I hope that the passage of time will provide some perspective... I love you and I will be there to support you if you ever need it."

His son would do well to heed those words. He is angry now, understandably so, but a lifetime is a long time to hate someone and not allow forgiveness to seep back into the heart.

The Rookie

wandsworth wrote:

The judge made pretty clear that Huhne could expect a jail sentence. If his wife is convicted she will face the same. Possibly more likely for her: he pleaded guilty (though at the last minute) and she didn't.

Most PCOJ offences get a prison sentance, when relating to minor motoring offences 6-12 months but SUSPENDED seems the norm.

wandsworth

DonDaddyD wrote:

reckon some of his sons text messages were sent by the Mum or very heavily influenced by the mother. One text had the word "ghastly". What teenage-grown Man writes the word "ghastly" while in the midst of typing out a rage filled text message?

Still, its sad though...

From Chris Huhne,

"I understand that I have really offended you but I hope that the passage of time will provide some perspective... I love you and I will be there to support you if you ever need it."

His son would do well to heed those words. He is angry now, understandably so, but a lifetime is a long time to hate someone and not allow forgiveness to seep back into the heart.

+1

The Rookie

bompington wrote:

wandsworth wrote:

I think those texts tell us a lot more about the son than the father and what it tells us isn't good.

From what I've seen, what the texts tell us about the son was that he was disgusted that his father was lying, cheating, and breaking the law. Exactly how does that reflect worse on the son than the father?

Because perhaps the son should recognise that the mother he is siding with has been lying and breaking the law (and possibly cheating - who nows) as well!

jonomc4

Lets just get to the wife for a second (only in writing to do so in real life would be worse than 25 years jail time).

So the offence was in 2003 - they were to all intense and purposes happily married. The main bread winner could loose his income and therefore the family (her and her son included) are going to take a major financial hit. I just wonder how coerced she actually was - she stood to gain almost as much as him.

Then the divorce - and as can be seen by the email exchange between her and the journalist she basically states she wants to get back at him - just as long as she faces no risks to herself - between her and the journalist they agree the risks are low - so she goes for it.

Now she desperately needs the "coerced" argument to work or it could scupper the lucrative book deal she most probably has lined up.

Out of the two she seems far worse. And now she is lying in court to get out of her original "perjury" - the hole gets dug deeper

DonDaddyD

I think she has always earned more money than him, even back in 2003 - I don't know about personal assets and wealth generated from this but on the face of it, it looks like she was always the bread winner but he had the status - its been suggested that's why he played away, Trinningham seems more subservient...

Not sure why she took the points, other than to save his career - the negative exposure would do him more harm than her (this was just before European Parliamentary Elections - arguably more of a big deal for the Lib Dems as they build towards the elections and develop a reputation as credible contenders for UK parliament. So the pressure was on and he probably didn't want any negative press).

Given her status here position in what is frankly a male dominated industry, I'd be surprised if she was ever coerced.

---

I think if we consider our current crop of politicians - honestly, when Boris Johnson is the most likable you have to question the integrity of the crowd - I believe Chris Huhne was someone whose arrogance meant that he wasn't afraid to challenge the 'boys club'. In that, then yes, maybe Parliament (more so the Lib Dems) has lost something by losing Chris Huhne.

---

His ex-wife - keep in mind that she ain't no wall flower. She filed for divorce within a week of finding out that he decided to leave her. There was no crying or 'should I take him back' or 'what did I do wrong, lets try and work at it for the family's sake' thoughts and pleading. Nope, BAM, she filed for divorce in less time than it takes many to process it, accept it or for a marriage guidance counsellor to get to work. She was humiliated nothing more nothing less. Her actions where petty, vindictive and born out of a need to get revenge.

I'm not defending Chris Huhne here, but his ex-wife's actions compounded on his own to destroy their family and certainly her actions and her actions alone (that of telling the police about the speeding points - to try and destroy him) will probably ruin both their lives. [Greg]

rick_chasey

I think people are quick to judge re marital coercion. We don't know what goes on behind closed doors.

Also, why are these texts in the public domain?

Paul E

Hate is a strong word

DonDaddyD

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think people are quick to judge re marital coercion. We don't know what goes on behind closed doors.

Also, why are these texts in the public domain?

They are part of the case - apparently a form of evidence. I suspect we haven't seen the full and entire text log.

rick_chasey

Genuine question: is the public entitled to see the evidence presented in a case?

Seems a bit much to me.

vermin

Rick Chasey wrote:

Genuine question: is the public entitled to see the evidence presented in a case?

Seems a bit much to me.

Yes. The court is a public forum, unless the judge dictates otherwise for specific policy reasons. That's a big consideration in commercial disputes and is one of the reasons companies often prefer to settle their differences in adjudication/arbitration/other.

tailwindhome

vermin wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Genuine question: is the public entitled to see the evidence presented in a case?

Seems a bit much to me.

Yes. The court is a public forum, unless the judge dictates otherwise for specific policy reasons. That's a big consideration in commercial disputes and is one of the reasons companies often prefer to settle their differences in adjudication/arbitration/other.

Consider the alternative.

tailwindhome

Jury discharged for being stupid.

tailwindhome

The jury asked the judge 10 questions

This was number 5

Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?

You may want to read that question a couple of times before you reflect on the people who make up juries....

mybreakfastconsisted

That sounds like an exasperated juror seeking clarification of something he knows full well because of some other argumentative knuckle-dragger on the jury.

DrLex

TailWindHome wrote:

The jury asked the judge 10 questions

This was number 5

Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?

You may want to read that question a couple of times before you reflect on the people who make up juries....

Having been in a jury a couple of times, this sadly comes as no great surprise. Since the property-owning criteria is unlikely to be restored, an intelligence test for juror selection would be welcome. The extra cost would be offset by faster deliberation times.

greg66_tri_v2.0

DrLex wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

The jury asked the judge 10 questions

This was number 5

Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it either from the prosecution or defence?

You may want to read that question a couple of times before you reflect on the people who make up juries....

Having been in a jury a couple of times, this sadly comes as no great surprise. Since the property-owning criteria is unlikely to be restored, an intelligence test for juror selection would be welcome. The extra cost would be offset by faster deliberation times.

Laudable idea, but don't you think that the nine or ten people who pass the test will have a rather heavy burden, listening to every jury trial in the country?