Here’s what Guido eagerly reported yesterday:
Hot on the revelation that Vicky Pryce has signed an affidavit confessing to have taken Chris Huhne’s points…
But today comes a complete volte-face:
Guido understands that both the Sunday Times and the Mail on Sunday have evidence that is not in the form of a “sworn affidavit” as was claimed yesterday by rivals the Telegraph.
I think that’s the closest Guido ever comes to saying, “I was wrong”.
Meanwhile, there appears to be some better news for Chris Huhne in today’s Telegraph, who are reporting that his ex-wife, Vicky Pryce, is now refusing to confirm to the police that she took the points on her then-husband’s behalf. They also report that, as a consequence, the police are now seeking the supposed affidavit that the Sunday newspapers have – yet, if Guido’s right (and, given recent events, that’s far from certain) such an affidavit does not, in fact, exist.
As ever, it’s slightly unclear where this leaves things, and Chris Huhne’s certainly not in the clear yet. But one can’t help but feel that things are looking better for the energy secretary than they did a couple of days ago.
UPDATE: And to round off the day, the Electoral Commission has rejected a complaint over Chris Huhne’s election expenses which Guido Fawkes had backed in an exchange in the comments on this blog.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Fleuchar Street #dundeewestend
How to explain, and beat, populism
Remembering Adrian Slade (1936-2025)
Labour are failing business
Peter Davies
Joseph Bourke
Simon R
nvelope2003
15 Comments
Any chance we can take the LDV editorial collective’s side of the blogosphere poo-flinging contest to libdemswhodontlikeguido.org, and leave Lib Dem Voice as a shared blog for articles about what’s actually happening with Lib Dems?
Hear, hear! Nobody cares what some random right-wing blogger thinks of Chris Huhne.
Well, they couldn’t look much worse than they did a few days ago, could they? Guido does tend to be right about things but I’d take what he says on this with a grain of salt as we know he has a lot of money on Huhne being the next minister to leave their post.
The trouble is that any outcome other than clear evidence that the allegations are false is going to leave Huhne’s credibility seriously damaged in the eyes of the public
This report that Vicky Pryce isn’t, after all, willing to incriminate herself scarcely amounts to that.
Given the volume of tittle tattle and unpleasent snipping he posts isn’t his ‘being right’ a case of if you fire of so many bullets a few of them will hit now and again?
My, you know when you’ve given up on the important arguments when a minor victory over Guido inspires so many blogposts.
I really wish LDV would stick to the important political stories of the day rather than descending into this mindless tabloid tittle-tattle. Guido is making himself look very silly without LDV having to run stories about his daft claims.
Personally I’m glad that LDV is rebutting Guido’s desperate and spurious claims. Many people (political journos, for instance) read Guido’s blog and also read Lib Dem Voice. The less they believe the former, the better for everyone. 🙂
Why is it wrong for LDV to publish facts that rebut false information about one of our Cabinet Ministers? It’s an unfortunate truth that a lot of people take Guido seriously, so pointing out he’s wrong is the right thing to do.
Guido’s now admitting that the councillors’ complaint about expenses was groundless, after the Electoral Commission’s report today (or at least as close as he’ll get.)
He’s still hanging on in there though for the complaint he & Harry Cole submitted as the “Sunlight Centre” (and still not admitting that he’s part of it…)
“Meanwhile, there appears to be some better news for Chris Huhne in today’s Telegraph, who are reporting that his ex-wife, Vicky Pryce, is now refusing to confirm to the police that she took the points on her then-husband’s behalf.”
Michael Crick, in turn, quotes a “reliable source” as casting doubt on the Telegraph report: “I hear that Vicky Pryce is “irritated” by the Telegraph report, and that “it’s rubbish that she’s not co-operating.””
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13579513
He also gives some rather crucial details of where and when the speeding offence is believed to have taken place:
“Huhne’s car was photographed, I am told, by a speed camera at around 11.20pm on the night in question, on a southbound section of the M11 close to London.”
As he points out, for Vicky Pryce to have been driving, this would have required her to have left the dinner at the LSE well before 10 p.m. So there may well be independent witnesses who can determine the truth of the matter.
Diddums!
> The trouble is that any outcome other than clear evidence that the allegations are false is going to leave Huhne’s credibility seriously damaged in the eyes of the public
Aren’t people innocent until proved guilty?
Well, as we seem to be accepting press reports at face value (as in “Better news for Chris Huhne,” in respect of one report whose accuracy is disputed), perhaps it’s worth mentioning the Mail on Sunday’s report, headlined “Huhne ‘declined’ to answer police questions about estranged wife’s speeding points,” which says that “According to a source close to the investigation, the embattled Minister declined to comment when grilled by detectives about his movements on the night of the alleged offence.” If that’s true, it’s very bad news indeed for Huhne’s supporters.
As we all know, “it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court.”
Incidentally, why on earth was my second comment yesterday evening – linking to Michael Crick’s report that attendees of the LSE dinner were being questioned by the police – deleted? It was certainly not abusive. It was obviously not off-topic. I can well understand that it may not have been “good news for Chris Huhne” – though it should have been excellent news for anyone who still believes his story – but as far as I know that’s not one of your declared criteria for censoring comments on this website.
“Aren’t people innocent until proved guilty?”
No, of course they aren’t. Crippen wasn’t innocent until the foreman of the jury stood up and said “”Guilty.”
What you’re thinking of is the legal presumption of innocence. If Huhne isn’t convicted of perverting the course of justice he will be legally presumed to be innocent. But people will draw their own conclusions about who was behind the wheel of the car.