They seem like idiots, trying to overcomplicate things. Surely they would have already been directed on half of the questions they're asking?



Edit: And now the jury have been discharged after not being able to agree on a verdict!

Why on earth would a very intelligent woman believe that she could shop her husband to the press without there being serious repercussions for herself?

Indeed.



[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21496566Guilty.[/url

"Take her down, the Pryce is guilty..."

Perhaps, as punishment, they should be made to share a cell ...

... what with you? (Just joking!)

Of course, some old cynics would say that we all know she'll get off with a bender, while he'll do some actual chokey.

It might be tricky to justify. Equal culpability and he did plead guilty, albeit late.

He only pleaded guilty having wasted a whole bunch of the court's time in trying unsuccessfully to get the case thrown out. It wasn't quite the full and frank admission it might have been plus hadn't he spent years bagging CPS etc.

Reading the emails between her and Isabel Oakeshott, I'm surprised it even took that long to come up with a guilty verdict. They seem pretty damning.

True, but Judges are meant to reward guilty pleas even if late or "caught red handed". As an example, Mrs Canoe Man received a longer sentence than her hubby.

Would that mean she has to give up her gig as a Hugh Fearnley-Fishingstall look-a-likey?