Never, but never, go running to the press when the story
involves you, and certainly not if it sucks in your family. That lesson had
already been learned many times before Chris Huhne’s former wife Vicky Pryce,
possibly aided and
abetted by her friend Constance Briscoe, touted her account of having taken
his speeding points round those who scrabble around the dunghill that is
Grubstreet.
He can't hear you. Any of you
Ms Pryce was not stuck for a few bob: her
purpose was revenge. She stated
unequivocally that she wanted to “nail”
Huhne, and the sooner the better. This expedition may have led to the Mail On Sunday, which
might have been interesting, given the boiling hatred of Paul Dacre for
anyone in the Lib Dems. But she settled on an alliance with the Murdoch press.
Sunday Times
political editor Isabel Oakeshott was most interested in the story, telling Ms
Pryce “The bottom line is that this story
will bring Chris down if you are prepared to go on the record, with the minor
risk this carries”. Whether Ms Oakeshott had her response passed by the
paper’s lawyers is not known, and after today’s events its influence on its
recipient may mean trouble for Rupe’s upmarket troops.
Because today the
second jury to hear the case found Ms Pryce guilty – the verdict was
unanimous – and, as she pleaded otherwise, unlike Huhne who
changed his plea to guilty as his trial started, the likelihood of a jail sentence
for perverting the course of justice is stronger. On top of that, the Crown
Prosecution Service (CPS) is talking of wanting costs to be added to any
judgment.
Much right now is being made of Ms Pryce’s assertions
that she alerted various senior Lib Dem figures to Huhne’s donation of
speeding points, but given she’s just been found guilty, and the figures
mentioned – Nick Clegg, his wife, Vince Cable and Matthew Oakeshott (third
cousin of the Sunday Times
journalist) – say she didn’t tell them, she’s out of luck unless she can provide
evidence.
So what next for Huhne and his former wife? It’s looking
like jail for the pair of them, together with a costs bill that may be of a
non-trivial nature. The whole family has had its dirty laundry dragged through
the press. Constance Briscoe is still being investigated, and her future as a
judge looks distinctly shaky if she gets done for telling porkies to the
rozzers.
Given that the speeding points episode happened in 2003, and
the authorities had not found out by 2010, Ms Pryce may well consider the
merits of letting those sleeping dogs lie. She’ll have plenty of time to make
that consideration, and reflect that trusting a Murdoch journalist may not be
the wisest course of action. No Bank of England MPC or House of Lords for her any time soon.
After all, their only consideration is getting the story. No change there, then.
No comments:
Post a Comment