# The News International trial



## brogdale (Oct 22, 2013)

Under a week to go now, so I thought it might be useful to have a nice new thread up and running for the events. At the outset I feel duty bound to remind people of this:-

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/current-court-cases.51856/

The trial, that is due to start next Monday, involves 





> ...eight defendants who all deny a number of allegations which developed out of the Metropolitan Police's Operation Weeting investigation into the News of the World.
> *Mrs Brooks*, 45, *Mr Coulson*, 45, former managing editor *Stuart Kuttner*, 73, and former news editor *Ian Edmondson*, 44, deny conspiracy to intercept mobile phone voicemails between October 2000 and August 2006.
> 
> She further denies two counts of conspiracy to commit misconduct in public office, one between January 2004 and January 2012, and a second between February 2006 and October 2008.
> ...



I figuring that this whole trial could represent 'top quality entertainment' for those of us keen to witness the simultaneous reputational damage to NI and the tory scum.

To mark the impending trial Exaro is reporting renewed anxiety of US Dept. Justice (FCPA) attention from within 'Fox' resulting from the recording of Murdoch admitting that he was aware that his reporters were bribing police and other public officials for decades.

Enjoy!


----------



## brogdale (Oct 22, 2013)

Oborne was recently licking his lips at Dave's imminent discomfort...



> So far, Mr Clegg has not sought to exploit the Prime Minister’s embarrassment. However, as their recent party conference showed, the Liberal Democrats are now in the mood to take on the Conservatives as the general election approaches. The spectacle of the Prime Minister’s personally chosen director of communications, Andy Coulson, and his close country neighbour, Rebekah Brooks, simultaneously on trial at the Old Bailey will be too delicious a target to ignore for many Lib Dems.
> 
> Meanwhile, Ed Miliband was the first party leader to express horror at the phone hacking affair, the first to challenge the power of Rupert Murdoch, and the first to call on Rebekah Brooks to quit. This is dream territory for a leader of the opposition. _*No one in his position has had such a slice of luck since Harold Wilson was handed the Profumo affair exactly 50 years ago.*_ Mr Miliband has assiduously built himself a reputation as a politician who takes on major corporate predators on behalf of their victims. Every day of this trial will make the opposition leader more appealing.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 23, 2013)




----------



## Gingerman (Oct 23, 2013)

brogdale said:


>


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 24, 2013)

brogdale said:


>



so much for his "humility" Why the fuck did MSM fall for that load of old pony?

Murdered kids are entitled not to be spied upon. Dead victims of police incompetence are entitled not to be lied about etc. etc. etc. 

An utterly disgusting man with a continuing influence of rancid toxicity.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 24, 2013)

Wish the malignant rancid toxic old reptile would hurry up and follow his beloved Thatch into becomming worm food.....


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Oct 24, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> Wish the malignant rancid toxic old reptile would hurry up and follow his beloved Thatch into becomming worm food.....




The trouble is much as i am gonna enjoy watching rupert taking his seat on the "Hell Express" unfortunately rupert has a son and like father like son so dont see News International discovering a liking for facts and the truth if it gets in the way of profits and sensationalism


----------



## stavros (Oct 25, 2013)

SikhWarrioR said:


> The trouble is much as i am gonna enjoy watching rupert taking his seat on the "Hell Express" unfortunately rupert has a son and like father like son so dont see News International discovering a liking for facts and the truth if it gets in the way of profits and sensationalism



But aren't both Lachlan and James clueless fuckwits who Rupert despairs of?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 26, 2013)

Hencke blogs some good NI gossip without jepoardising the trial:-

http://davidhencke.wordpress.com/20...for-phone-hacking-says-murdoch-ex-chief-exec/




> In the new secret recording,Mockridge says: “There’s a shitload of just financial expense – across the civil cases,” he says. “The hacking probably, by the time it’s all over, is going to cost News Corp minimum of £500 million, if not a billion.”
> On the future of NI in Britain he says: “If NI wasn’t a subsidiary to News Corporation, this company would be bankrupt now. There wouldn’t be a Sun, a Times, a Sunday Times. There’s no way this company, as a stand-alone operation, could afford to financially sustain the exposure it’s taken.”
> The rest of the conversation is spiced with racy comments describing what has happened to NI as ” open heart surgery”. Lawyers who conducted the investigation into NI are described as ” bastards” and he gives the strongest commitment to saying NI will keep employing arrested journos even if found guilty in the courts.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 27, 2013)

It will be very entertaining to watch these court cases.  

I wonder how long they are expected to last - as trials are usually pencilled in for a given period of time based on the complexity of the matters in hand.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> It will be very entertaining to watch these court cases.
> 
> I wonder how long they are expected to last - as trials are usually pencilled in for a given period of time based on the complexity of the matters in hand.



I read somewhere, maybe 5 or 6 months.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 27, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I read somewhere, maybe 5 or 6 months.


 
Oh good - a nice drip drip of damaging stories! 

And helpfully, this will make it due to end around 12 months before the next election - so whatever the outcome, it will be fresh in the minds of the public.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 27, 2013)

Is there any chance that Coulson and Brooks will get prison sentences out of this?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Is there any chance that Coulson and Brooks will get prison sentences out of this?



If they're found guilty.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 27, 2013)

brogdale said:


> If they're found guilty.



And how big is that 'if'? Better call Saul.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 27, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Is there any chance that Coulson and Brooks will get prison sentences out of this?


Should be OK if they do (fingers crossed) have'nt they been telling us for years in their shitty rags that prisons are little more than holiday camps.....


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> Should be OK if they do (fingers crossed) have'nt they been telling us for years in their shitty rags that prisons are little more than holiday camps.....


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 27, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24690002uk-24690002
Definatly not a Tory attempt to try and take attention away from the forthcoming NI trial,eh Grant Shitts ? No sirree.....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24690002uk-24690002
> Definatly not a Tory attempt to try and take attention away from the forthcoming NI trial,eh Grant Shitts ? No sirree.....



Link goes to a 404.


----------



## coltrane (Oct 27, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Link goes to a 404.



Try:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24690002

See what internet scammer Shapps has to say about the BBC. 



> "They have ended up working in this culture which is buried in the last century, which is 'we are the BBC, we do what we like, we don't have to be too accountable'.



Insert Conservative Party for BBC above and he would  have spoken the truth for once.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 27, 2013)

http://searchengineland.com/uk-conservative-party-chair-founded-google-spamming-business-132087
Shapps is surely proof that even shite on a stick can get elected to Parlament......Fucking spiv


----------



## brogdale (Oct 28, 2013)

Hope the weather doesn't delay proceedings too much.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 28, 2013)

Here we go......





> The trial, before Mr Justice Saunders, is the first of three trials emanating from the phone-hacking scandal.
> 
> The first job will be to empanel a jury, which is expected to take up most of the first day.
> 
> ...


----------



## brogdale (Oct 28, 2013)

Don't they look sad.....what a shame!


----------



## Anonymous1 (Oct 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Don't they look sad.....what a shame!



Not sad, but extremely concerned. And so they should be.
Let's see if they start shitting on each other to save their own skin.
Wouldn't hold my breath, but they must be headed for the pokey either way.



goldenecitrone said:


> And how big is that 'if'? Better call Saul.



Too late for that, shirley?
I'm sure he would have a go but even Slithering Saul couldn't successfuly defend hacking a missing child's voicemail.
It's simply indefensible and that's just one from their list of Cuntish deeds.


----------



## teqniq (Oct 28, 2013)

*Preliminary gloat, in expectation of lots more gloating*


----------



## 1%er (Oct 28, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Is there any chance that Coulson and Brooks will get prison sentences out of this?


If found guilty they could get prison sentences, for intercept mobile phone voice-mail messages; the maximum sentences is 2 years. For perverting the course of justice and also for committing misconduct in a public office the maximum sentences is life imprisonment.

I can't find a record in recent history where life has been given for those offenses.

This trial could have massive implications for Murdoch’s empire, it was only a couple of months ago that he split News Corporation into the two companies it is now, News Corp and 21st Century Fox. This split was opposed by many who claimed Murdoch was only doing this to ring-fence a large part of his empire from the fallout this trial could bring. 

This is being watched closely by lawyers, business rivals and politicians alike, the slightest sniff of a breach of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or any illegal activity on US soil and he'll be in court quick smart over there.


----------



## mack (Oct 28, 2013)

I think we may all be getting our hopes up here - surely they'll have enough dirt on the judges to ensure they get off or if found guilty they'll get 6-12 months in the softest open prisons.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 28, 2013)

mack said:


> I think we may all be getting our hopes up here - surely they'll have enough dirt on the judges to ensure they get off or if found guilty they'll get 6-12 months in the softest open prisons.



Yeah, but there's some potentially tasty by-products from the trial process, whatever sentences these scum get off with. Cameron will suffer 'collateral damage' by close association with Beks, and questions over his judgement will not go away after employing Coulson (despite counter advice). Added to which, based upon the potential revelations, there's the distinct prospect of NI/Fox getting done in the US for bribery of public officials, and the prospect of large sections of the Met. being shown as the corrupt, amoral scum that they are.

What's not to like?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 28, 2013)

Just imagine if you'd been called up for jury service and got landed with this one! I suppose you'd have to dress up as some tory twat today to get through the jury selection process, then just sit back, enjoy and not bother concentrating much...cos you'd already know the verdict!

e2a : 80 potential jurors today, whittled down to 20 who all have to fill in questionnaires tonight (?) for the final selection of 12 tomorrow. Judge apparently told them not to look anything up on the internet about the case.


----------



## Fez909 (Oct 28, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Just imagine if you'd been called up for jury service and got landed with this one! I suppose you'd have to dress up as some tory twat today to get through the jury selection process, then just sit back, enjoy and not bother concentrating much...cos you'd already know the verdict!
> 
> e2a : 80 potential jurors today, whittled down to 20 who all have to fill in questionnaires tonight (?) for the final selection of 12 tomorrow. Judge apparently told them not to look anything up on the internet about the case.



Is tomorrow the judges' houses round?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 29, 2013)

Of course, if any are found guilty they'll probably not do much time and just write a book or something in clink.

Hulne and Price have both done media work since early release. Brookes and the others could be more or less welcomed back into the establishment, so long as they keep their traps shut on certain issues I suppose.

It's only untermensch serfs who have to live with grim consequences of many offences.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 29, 2013)

Funny, is it true? 



> Police are requesting _“on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service”_ that magazine vendors refrain from selling today’s edition of _Private Eye_. This afternoon two plain clothes policemen asked this vendor working outside Farringdon Station to take down this week’s _Eye_. When the vendor, who does not wish to be named, asked them why, they said it was at the request of the CPS, specifically because of the cover featuring Rebekah Brooks. They showed identification. The vendor told the cops he would keep selling them unless they produced a court order...................


----------



## agricola (Oct 29, 2013)

1%er said:


> Funny, is it true?



Dont know, but the judge specifically referred to that issue in his directions.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 29, 2013)

agricola said:


> Dont know, but the judge specifically referred to that issue in his directions.


Do you mean the issue of private eye mentioned above or the issue of reporting/reading about the case?


----------



## agricola (Oct 29, 2013)

1%er said:


> Do you mean the issue of private eye mentioned above or the issue of reporting/reading about the case?



According to the BBC, that specific issue.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 29, 2013)

What's this jury selection thing about then? I don't like that one bit. 

But we're not allowed to talk about any of this stuff I suppose. Which is not a dig at Ed or the mods, but rather at the ridiculous notion that random people posting stuff on the internet is more likely to prejudice this case than the fact it's been just about the biggest UK news story of recent years


----------



## 8115 (Oct 29, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> What's this jury selection thing about then? I don't like that one bit.
> 
> But we're not allowed to talk about any of this stuff I suppose. Which is not a dig at Ed or the mods, but rather at the ridiculous notion that random people posting stuff on the internet is more likely to prejudice this case than the fact it's been just about the biggest UK news story of recent years


Jury selection is very normal.  They would be asked, for instance, if they had strong opinions about the guilt or innocence of the accused or whatever.  Potential jurors would be asked a few questions in most (I think) cases to ensure that the trial was fair.  So, for a drugs trial, if you said you had strong opinions that drugs should be legalised, you might not be selected.  I'm not 100% on the details but I think it's very normal, more so for big/ public trials.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 29, 2013)

8115 said:


> Jury selection is very normal.  They would be asked, for instance, if they had strong opinions about the guilt or innocence of the accused or whatever.  Potential jurors would be asked a few questions in most (I think) cases to ensure that the trial was fair.  So, for a drugs trial, if you said you had strong opinions that drugs should be legalised, you might not be selected.  I'm not 100% on the details but I think it's very normal, more so for big/ public trials.



Who makes the selection though? CPS? The judge? An impartial computer program created by prison service subcontractors G4S?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 29, 2013)

1%er said:


> Funny, is it true?



It seems to be just vendors near to the Old Bailey. 

The cover itself is just a cheap joke at Brooks' expense, there's no mention of the trial.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 29, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Who makes the selection though? CPS? The judge? An impartial computer program created by prison service subcontractors G4S?


Wiki -


> Selected jurors are generally subjected to a system of examination whereby both the prosecution (or plaintiff, in a civil case) and defense can object to a juror. In common law countries, this is known as _voir dire_. _Voir dire_ can include both general questions asked of an entire pool of prospective jurors, answered by means such as a show of hands, and questions asked of individual prospective jurors and calling for a verbal answer. In some jurisdictions, the attorneys for the parties may question the potential jurors; in other jurisdictions, the trial judge conducts the _voir dire_.
> 
> The method and scope of the possible rejections varies between countries:
> 
> ...



I thought objections could be broader than that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 29, 2013)

8115 said:


> Wiki -
> 
> 
> I thought objections could be broader than that.



You'd think if they have to whittle it down from 80 jurors there must be more to it than whether or not the jurors know the defendants personally.


----------



## 8115 (Oct 29, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> You'd think if they have to whittle it down from 80 jurors there must be more to it than whether or not the jurors know the defendants personally.


Probably also need to make sure people can commit for 6 months.  Not exactly sure what the rules are on replacement jurors, don't think they are allowed.  So from a financial perspective at least, it's vitally important this trial does not collapse.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 29, 2013)

Six months? Jesus fucking christ


----------



## 8115 (Oct 29, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Six months? Jesus fucking christ


What?  Too long or too short?  Pretty sure that's an estimate I saw somewhere (probably i, that's the only paper I've read recently).


----------



## 1%er (Oct 29, 2013)

These jurors will have fucked up lives for months now. Private detectives and others looking at their history and day to day lives, you can bet their internet activerty will be looked at, their phones records etc.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 29, 2013)

8115 said:


> What?  Too long or too short?  Pretty sure that's an estimate I saw somewhere (probably i, that's the only paper I've read recently).



Too long by about five months and twenty eight days.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 29, 2013)

1%er said:


> These jurors will have fucked up lives for months now. Private detectives and others looking at their history and day to day lives, you can bet their internet activerty will be looked at, their phones records etc.



Gruesomely ironic but most likely true


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 29, 2013)

saw an article on Facebook today about a newspaper stall that had a visit from the old bill telling the owner to hide copies of Private Eye with Rebecca Brooks on the cover !! This just makes it all the more surreal


----------



## 1%er (Oct 29, 2013)

trevhagl said:


> saw an article on Facebook today about a newspaper stall that had a visit from the old bill telling the owner to hide copies of Private Eye with Rebecca Brooks on the cover !! This just makes it all the more surreal


see post 33


----------



## Smyz (Oct 29, 2013)

1%er said:


> Do you mean the issue of private eye mentioned above or the issue of reporting/reading about the case?


The judge held up a copy of the magazine in court and told the jury that they would see it on news stands, not to buy it, and to disregard the silly joke being made at a very inappropriate time.

According to the BBC TV news earlier.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 29, 2013)

> ....he directed the jurors to ignore comments they may come across during the trial, which is expected to last up to six months. The prosecution is expected to open its case at 2pm on Wednesday.He drew particular attention to the latest issue of Private Eye published on Tuesday. Shortly after being sworn in, the jury was shown the magazine. "It bears a picture of Rebekah Brooks on the cover. It's meant to be satire. You ignore it," Saunders said....



Is this man Saunders not very bright, or am I missing something here?


----------



## laptop (Oct 30, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> The cover itself is just a cheap joke at Brooks' expense, there's no mention of the trial.



Yes, but _what is it_?

http://private-eye.co.uk still showing last issue.

And it's not on sale anywhere near where I am.


----------



## laptop (Oct 30, 2013)

Ah.

I do hope there are no jurors here.














Spoiler: Eye cover


----------



## Ted Striker (Oct 30, 2013)

Last one on my news stand was that one too


----------



## teqniq (Oct 30, 2013)

A witch? Never!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 30, 2013)

8115 said:


> Probably also need to make sure people can commit for 6 months.  Not exactly sure what the rules are on replacement jurors, don't think they are allowed.  So from a financial perspective at least, it's vitally important this trial does not collapse.


 
One potential juror was 5 months pregnant, so she was dismissed


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2013)

laptop said:


> Ah.
> 
> I do hope there are no jurors here.
> 
> ...



This is the full cover:-





and, call me an old misery....but that doesn't appear either very funny or 'satirical'. To call a woman facing trial a witch kind of implies some sympathy for her position ie. that she's being tried unfairly etc.

Not one of their best IMO.


----------



## agricola (Oct 30, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Not one of their best IMO.



This year has been a very poor one for _Eye_ covers, this being the only highlight.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 30, 2013)

agricola said:


> According to the BBC, that specific issue.


Presumably only counts as contempt if she was on trial for witchcraft though?


----------



## DrRingDing (Oct 30, 2013)

trevhagl said:


> saw an article on Facebook today about a newspaper stall that had a visit from the old bill telling the owner to hide copies of Private Eye with Rebecca Brooks on the cover !! This just makes it all the more surreal



Link?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2013)

Pretty strong opening gambit from the prosecution....



> *Three former News of the World employees have pleaded guilty to phone hacking charges*, an Old Bailey jury was told this afternoon, as part of the opening of the trial of Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson, Brooks's husband and four other former employees of the now closed Sunday newspaper.
> 
> The crown prosecutor revealed that *the individuals had already pleaded guilty at an earlier stage in proceedings*, as he outlined to the court that News of the World was at the centre of three criminal conspiracies dating back to the year 2000, involving the two former editors.
> 
> Andrew Edis QC said that those pleading guilty were former News of the World news editors Neville Thurlbeck, Greg Miskiw and James Weatherup. The court also heard that the private investigator contracted by the newspaper to undertake the alleged hacking, Glenn Mulcaire, had pleaded guilty.



Looking good.


----------



## stavros (Oct 30, 2013)

DrRingDing said:


> Link?



This has something about it.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 30, 2013)

Really hope the proscution have done their homework,would hate to see these cunts get off....


----------



## weltweit (Oct 30, 2013)

Can't be bothered to follow the details, wake me when there is a result to argue over!!


----------



## DexterTCN (Oct 30, 2013)

We should watch our comments now. 

Probably.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 30, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> We should watch our comments now.
> 
> Probably.



This... 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/current-court-cases.51856/


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2013)




----------



## torquemad (Oct 31, 2013)

1%er said:


> These jurors will have fucked up lives for months now. Private detectives and others looking at their history and day to day lives, you can bet their internet activerty will be looked at, _*their phones records etc*_.



Any private detectives looking for details of calls made/ received etc by jurors, please get in touch. I understand there are journalists who may be able to help.


----------



## The Pale King (Oct 31, 2013)

Guardian reporting that Coulson and Brooks were lovers for six years during their editorships / when the hacking was going on.


----------



## belboid (Oct 31, 2013)

The Pale King said:


> Guardian reporting that Coulson and Brooks were lovers for six years during their editorships / when the hacking was going on.


yes indeed, marvellous stuff. he's fucked her in more ways than one now 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24762474


----------



## T & P (Oct 31, 2013)

Lollollollollollollol!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Certainly helps the conspiracy angle.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 31, 2013)

belboid said:


> yes indeed, marvellous stuff. he's fucked her in more ways than one now
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24762474


very droll


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Note the phrasing:



> Rebekah Brooks had a secret affair for at least six years with Andy Coulson, her successor as editor of the News of the World, it emerged at the Old Bailey on Thursday.


Not RB and AC had...or AC and RB had...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 31, 2013)

The Pale King said:


> Guardian reporting that Coulson and Brooks were lovers for six years during their editorships / when the hacking was going on.





> "But Mrs Brooks and Mr Coulson are charged with conspiracy and, when people are charged with conspiracy, the first question a jury has to answer is how well did they know each other? How much did they trust each other?
> 
> "And the fact that they were in this relationship which was a secret means that they trusted each other quite a lot with at least that secret and that's why we are telling you about it."



It appears that the prosecution wants to establish an argument that if they were shagging they were also more likely to have been conspiring, (which reasoning could presumably be extended to anyone else that either of them might hypothetically have been shagging.)


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Not without stuff like the above bernie.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 31, 2013)

Apols if this has been posted, but worth repeating :

@peterjukes does regular updates from the courtroom.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 31, 2013)

T


butchersapron said:


> Not without stuff like the above bernie.



The letter you mean? If so I agree, but still a thought.

Edited to add: or for that matter the rest of the evidence ...


----------



## Ted Striker (Oct 31, 2013)

_She wrote: "The fact is you are my very best friend, I tell you everything, I confide in you, I seek your advice, I love you, care about you, worry about you, we laugh and cry together.

"In fact without our relationship in my life, I am not sure I will cope."

Mr Edis told jurors he was not revealing the affair to deliberately intrude into their privacy or to make a "moral judgment"._



Suddenly just got an insight into how it must have felt for them when hey found out about Major/Currie style affairs


----------



## 1%er (Oct 31, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It appears that the prosecution wants to establish an argument that if they were shagging they were also more likely to have been conspiring, (which reasoning could presumably be extended to anyone else that either of them might hypothetically have been shagging.)


This is what the fuss was about a while back iirc. The people having an affair that could cause embarrassment to Cameron. It came to light because the defense challenged its relevance's in closed court, but it leaked out.

If the published dates are correct both Coulson and Brooks married other people while they were having their affair, says a great deal about them.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

How sure you that this is what the fuss was about? That it's limited to this? Who told you?


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How sure you that this is what the fuss was about? That it's limited to this? Who told you?



He knows stuff, or he knows people who know stuff. You could join too, you know.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

But he was too cool.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> How sure you that this is what the fuss was about? That it's limited to this? Who told you?


Its in the public domain and has been spoken about on TV today.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

1%er said:


> Its in the public domain and has been spoken about on TV today.


Which answers not a single one of my three questions.


----------



## 1%er (Oct 31, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Which answers not a single one of my three questions.


So that's not a good start then


----------



## 1%er (Oct 31, 2013)

brogdale said:


> He knows stuff, or he knows people who know stuff. You could join too, you know.


Do you think Brooks could be a Mason


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2013)

1%er said:


> Its in the public domain and has been spoken about on TV today.



Having checked the Mail's coverage of this courtroom revelation, they make no reference whatsoever to their "Secret Affair" teaser of June 3rd. You'd think they'd be keen to prove how 'ahead of the curve' they were by bigging up their 'scoop' *if* that was the affair they were signalling?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

1%er said:


> So that's not a good start then


Odd an answer that says _i have no idea why i authoritatively said something, don't trust me._


----------



## brogdale (Oct 31, 2013)

1%er said:


> Do you think Brooks could be a Mason



You tell us, man of secrets.


----------



## elbows (Oct 31, 2013)

Just for reference, this is the thread with the original affair speculation and with numerous references to Paul Staines letting the cat out of the bag: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/anyone-good-at-reading-between-the-lines.311081/


----------



## 1%er (Oct 31, 2013)

brogdale said:


> You tell us, man of secrets.


If I knew how I'd make that my tag line


----------



## Shirl (Oct 31, 2013)

1%er said:


> If I knew how I'd make that my tag line


Do you really not know? Click on your name at the top, next to inbox


----------



## silverfish (Oct 31, 2013)

Ted Striker said:


> _She wrote: "The fact is you are my very best friend, I tell you everything, I confide in you, I seek your advice, I love you, care about you, worry about you, we laugh and cry together.
> 
> "In fact without our relationship in my life, I am not sure I will cope."
> 
> ...



this is a beautiful thing


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 31, 2013)

So Blunkett was spied on by the News Of The Screws! 

The same nasty shit who wanted us eye scanned and monitored for life via 40 categories of data for the ID scheme. 

Wonder how he and other control freak weirdos in his party feel about "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" now.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 31, 2013)




----------



## Gingerman (Oct 31, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> So Blunkett was spied on by the News Of The Screws!
> 
> The same nasty shit who wanted us eye scanned and monitored for life via 40 categories of data for the ID scheme.
> 
> Wonder how he and other control freak weirdos in his party feel about "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" now.


 Did'nt the cunt write a column for the Sun ?


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 31, 2013)

Randy Andy and Bonking Brooks in love affair shocka....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 31, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> Did'nt the cunt write a column for the Sun ?


News International -an MP for Sheffield Brightside and *Hillsborough *seat took money from the people who published the Sun. And he did it over many years. It's not news that Blunkett was targeted btw - he settled yonks ago.


----------



## laptop (Oct 31, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> Did'nt the cunt write a column for the Sun ?



Jurors, look away now.*

IIRC, he was offered that after the hacking became known to him.

And then didn't join the lawsuit by the hackees. Not early enough to retain credibility, anyway.

* I have no reason to believe this will be an issue in the case.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> Did'nt the cunt write a column for the Sun ?



Right up until about a month ago, I believe, if his declaration of interests is accurate (as he's no longer listing the just under £100,000 retainer that New International paid him).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 1, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> Randy Andy and Bonking Brooks in love affair shocka....



Wonder if she ever Mullered him like she did Ross Kemp?


----------



## Stigmata (Nov 1, 2013)

^Arrested but not charged!


----------



## elbows (Nov 1, 2013)

> Following an email discussion on the matter, Mr Coulson sent Mr Edmondson a message which read: "Do his phone."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24769953


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 1, 2013)

That's gotta hurt.


----------



## barney_pig (Nov 1, 2013)

"In 2003, Goodman emailed Mr Coulson to ask if he could pay a royal policeman £1,000 for another directory, saying: "These people will not be paid in anything other than cash because if they're discovered selling stuff to us they end up on criminal charges, as could we."

Mr Edis said that, as a result of that conversation, a cash payment of £1,000 was made to a David Farish, which turned out to be a false name.

"The investigation has never identified the policeman responsible for this," Mr Edis told the court."

Banged to rights- 
And yet another bad apple still in the rotten barrel


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 1, 2013)

I know it's too early to draw conclusions but I'd say, 'don't conduct your criminal conspiracies via email' is already emerging as frontrunner for the moral of the story.

e2a: Sorry, I meant to say don't conduct your alleged criminal conspiracies via email if by any chance you happen to be involved in any.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2013)

All still unchallenged prosecution summary.  The defence is made of very clever people.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> All still unchallenged prosecution summary.  The defence is made of very clever people.


 
Guilty of nothing more than being in love. Smart fuckers.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Guilty of nothing more than being in love. Smart fuckers.


Be interesting to see what they can come up with: i was trying to expose him/her, they have to undermine the letter(s) as being real  - or as expressing real opinions  - they have to show a culture of fakeness that this existed in where there were no strong direct ties to other peoples actions, where other people could 'work towards' what they felt these two wanted. They have a lot space for defence _on the summary presented here. _And of course, the letter could be argued to mean that the stuff they need to deal with and may need to talk about is their partners not work.


----------



## Ted Striker (Nov 1, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's gotta hurt.



SO much dynamite in the past few days. And it's supposed to run for 6 months.

(I keep hearing about the Edmundson chap referred to and can't picture anyone else but Richie from Bottom...)


----------



## brogdale (Nov 1, 2013)

elbows said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24769953



Ouch!

Coulson's defence team will struggle with that one.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 1, 2013)

_Bu for  the son of George Best and a woman_


----------



## Favelado (Nov 1, 2013)

"Will the Prime Minister be visiting his friends Andy and Rebekah in prison?" would do me as opening question at PMQs sometime in 2014.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 1, 2013)

I reserve the right to re-post this again, ( when if the loathsome Coulson is convicted etc.), but here is the the basis for the collateral damage to the `dave/tory party:-


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Nov 1, 2013)

brogdale said:


> I reserve the right to re-post this again, ( when if the loathsome Coulson is convicted etc.), but here is the the basis for the collateral damage to the `dave/tory party:-



To be fair to the slimy git he has at least been consistent over the years. Awful judgement in the first place but at least he's consistent...


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 1, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Be interesting to see what they can come up with: i was trying to expose him/her, they have to undermine the letter(s) as being real  - or as expressing real opinions  - they have to show a culture of fakeness that this existed in where there were no strong direct ties to other peoples actions, where other people could 'work towards' what they felt these two wanted. They have a lot space for defence _on the summary presented here. _And of course, the letter could be argued to mean that the stuff they need to deal with and may need to talk about is their partners not work.


 
Fill that space with true romance and in that culture only the cynical will believe the conspiracy. It becomes about them and not what they did. Pure tabloid. Complicity is the question. Love is the answer. Scumbags.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> Fill that space with true romance and in that culture only the cynical will believe the conspiracy. It becomes about them and not what they did. Pure tabloid. Complicity is the question. Love is the answer. Scumbags.


 Love amongst the pin numbers.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 1, 2013)

Bob_the_lost said:


> To be fair to the slimy git he has at least been consistent over the years. Awful judgement in the first place but at least he's consistent...



I would imagine that such (strict) consistency resulted from knowing the dreadful truth.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2013)

Haven't seen a list of witnesses yet. That will be interesting (on both the defence and prosecution sides).  Mind I'm not sure their well connected friends would really qualify as _'character witnesses'_.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 1, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Love amongst the pin numbers.


 
What's that about?


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 1, 2013)

Damn shame old man Murdoch and his idiot boy James aren't in the dock as well.....


----------



## brogdale (Nov 1, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> Damn shame old man Murdoch and his idiot boy James aren't in the dock as well.....



If this lot get done, then the yanks might well be after the old scrote.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 1, 2013)

Buckaroo said:


> What's that about?


Phone hacking - mobile pin numbers.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 1, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> Damn shame old man Murdoch and his idiot boy James aren't in the dock as well.....


It is interesting that to-date nothing has come to light re old man Murdoch. The police and prosecution seem to have lots of historic documents and computers etc yet no paper or electronic trail to him, as yet. 

From interviews I've seen and read by some of his former editors, I always got the impression "he had his finger on the pulse" and knew what was going on inside his UK based papers 

It all looks damning now, but the defense team have known what was coming for a long time and they clearly believe they have answers to all these allegations, it will be interesting hear them, in time.


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 1, 2013)




----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 1, 2013)

Gingerman said:


>



Randy Andy's Brookey Nookey!!!


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 1, 2013)

elbows said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24769953



I am eager to see how that will explained, but Im sure it will be


----------



## Nine Bob Note (Nov 2, 2013)

I have enjoyed hearing the news refering to "the celebrity Callum Best"


----------



## Ted Striker (Nov 2, 2013)

Nine Bob Note said:


> I have enjoyed hearing the news refering to "the celebrity Callum Best"



Probably a welcome blast from the past for him too


----------



## Badgers (Nov 2, 2013)

(((Ross Kemp)))


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 2, 2013)




----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2013)

Just reading _the_Guardian and 'Just finished the calls...' page 8. 

I must be _terribly _naive but how do these people expect to get away with this?


----------



## Ponyutd (Nov 2, 2013)

Gingerman said:


> Damn shame old man Murdoch and his idiot boy James aren't in the dock as well.....



The length of this trial will see Murdoch a long time brown bread.


----------



## teqniq (Nov 2, 2013)

5t3IIa said:


> Just reading _the_Guardian and 'Just finished the calls...' page 8.
> 
> I must be _terribly _naive but how do these people expect to get away with this?



Friends in high places, perhaps.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 2, 2013)

5t3IIa said:


> Just reading _the_Guardian and 'Just finished the calls...' page 8.
> 
> I must be _terribly _naive but how do these people expect to get away with this?



i'm not at all sure they do expect to get away with it.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 2, 2013)

5t3IIa said:


> Just reading _the_Guardian and 'Just finished the calls...' page 8.
> 
> I must be _terribly _naive but how do these people expect to get away with this?



Looking at this again, two things stand out. One, the power of that corporation that managed, (with their bent mates in the Met.), to suppress any meaningful state response to this admission for 8 years. Two, how interesting it is to see both defendants speak assuredly about what their colleagues had done/were doing, and that in all instances such payments had been legal. That seems to make a defence of ignorance about the conduct of their underlings rather implausible.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> i'm not at all sure they do expect to get away with it.



Then why not go 'guilty' and go straight to jail denouement and not have all this affair crap and stuff come out? If this is the first 4 days and we're set for 4 _months _what the actual fuck else is going to ooze out?!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2013)

teqniq said:


> Friends in high places, perhaps.



It's way too late for that, surely?


----------



## teqniq (Nov 2, 2013)

5t3IIa said:


> It's way too late for that, surely?


You would have thought so but I just have doubts. maybe my cynicism is getting the better of me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 2, 2013)

well if they do get guilty they'd better do longer than huhne and his ex who were out in 3 months on tag, which is a fucking liberty. Literally.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2013)

teqniq said:


> You would have thought so but I just have doubts. maybe my cynicism is getting the better of me.



Maybe their arrogance surpasses all bounds of understanding? It would truly be an unbelievable plotline in a movie. Who are they confident of having waiting in the wings? Like The Queen popped up with a "Oh yes, I do remember that" to get Burrell off...?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> well if they do get guilty they'd better do longer than huhne and his ex who were out in 3 months on tag, which is a fucking liberty. Literally.



The line is never going to be drawn


----------



## Ponyutd (Nov 2, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Looking at this again, two things stand out. One, the power of that corporation that managed, (with their bent mates in the Met.), to suppress any meaningful state response to this admission for 8 years. Two, how interesting it is to see both defendants speak assuredly about what their colleagues had done/were doing, and that in all instances such payments had been legal. That seems to make a defence of ignorance about the conduct of their underlings rather implausible.



The third thing that stands out is why they couldn't fix the armrest for the bloke behind her?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 2, 2013)

5t3IIa said:


> Just reading _the_Guardian and 'Just finished the calls...' page 8.
> 
> I must be _terribly _naive but how do these people expect to get away with this?



Guilt, and severity of punishment, are inversely proportional to the amount of money you have to spend on lawyers.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 2, 2013)

elbows said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24769953


Re: Do his phone
If "he" knew about phone hacking back then, you could come to the view he was referring to hacking Best's phone, if "he" didn't know about hacking at the time, what then?

What was his evidence to Leveson about his knowledge of hacking at the time, anyone remember? (or was that something that couldn't be entered into because of police inquires or on going legal issues  )


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Guilt, and severity of punishment, are inversely proportional to the amount of money you have to spend on lawyers.



Are they being led by the lawyers who are saying "Trust us [pay us!]! You can get away with this! We can muddy "Do his phone" down into nothing and you'll be home in time for tea! Invoice to follow" and actually going for it?!


----------



## 5t3IIa (Nov 2, 2013)

dp


----------



## xenon (Nov 2, 2013)

5t3IIa said:


> Are they being led by the lawyers who are saying "Trust us [pay us!]! You can get away with this! We can muddy "Do his phone" down into nothing and you'll be home in time for tea! Invoice to follow" and actually going for it?!



Given they're not pleading guilty, the lawyers have to do something. Yep, win win for them. As per.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2013)

*Andy Davies*@adavies4
Andy Coulson was himself hacked by Glenn Mulcaire, claims Coulson barrister Timothy Langdale QC. #hackingtrial

Victims of a footballer out of control!!


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> *Andy Davies*@adavies4
> Andy Coulson was himself hacked by Glenn Mulcaire, claims Coulson barrister Timothy Langdale QC. #hackingtrial


I was just about to post that.  Hilarious

Can he sue himself?


----------



## Wilf (Nov 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> *Andy Davies*@adavies4
> Andy Coulson was himself hacked by Glenn Mulcaire, claims Coulson barrister Timothy Langdale QC. #hackingtrial


 
Brings to mind the John Cooper Clarke line 'those who aren't hanging are hanging someone else'.

Read the paper - humdrum
Henley Regatta - page one
Eat die - ho hum
Page three - big bum
Giving a lunatic a loaded gun
He walks - others run
Thirty dead - no fun
Foreigners feature as figures of fun
Do something destructive chum
Sit right down - write a letter to the Sun
Say... "Bring back hangin' for everyone"
The took my advice - they brought it back
National costume was all-over-black
There were corpses in the avenues and cul-de-sacs
Piled up neatly in six-man stacks
Hanging from the traffic lights and specially made racks
They'd hang you for incontinence and fiddling your tax
Failure to hang yourself justified the axe
A deedely dee, a deedely dum
Looks like they brought back hangin' for everyone
The novelty's gone - it's hell
This place is a - death cell
The constant clang of the funeral bells
Those who aren't hanging are hanging someone else
The peoples pay - the paper sells
It's plug ugly - sub-animal yells
Death is unsightly - death smells
Swingin' Britain - don't put me on
They're gonna bring back the rope for everyone


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> *Andy Davies*@adavies4
> Andy Coulson was himself hacked by Glenn Mulcaire, claims Coulson barrister Timothy Langdale QC. #hackingtrial
> 
> Victims of a footballer out of control!!


The twitter said coulson will go into the witness box,have they right to not go into the box


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> The twitter said coulson will go into the witness box,have they right to not go into the box


Nope.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2013)

This is Andrew Edis QC, for the prosecution - please tell me this mangled rubbish is better live than on record (cue Silas): 



> "There was always a course of justice in existence which could be perverted by hiding evidence. Hiding evidence was not acceptable at any time that year, but the atmosphere, we would suggest, became even more fevered as time went on,"


----------



## brogdale (Nov 4, 2013)

Interesting move from Coulson's team to get in early with that statement today. 

Smart or desperate? We'll see.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2013)

Can/have they mentioned the guilty pleas for the other lot?

Defence summary seems to suggest too large couldn't have known. Which is going to tie them up in weeks of defending the stuff that we know they knew about. Can't see the strategy there, cant see the benefit.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2013)

> Langdale said evidence would be heard that Coulson himself was hacked by Mulcaire. "The prosecution didn't choose to tell you about that in opening the case to you. It's not easy to reconcile with their case against Mr Coulson, is it? Both conspirator and victim at the same time."



Pretty easy. We even have folk names for it, stuff like _biter bit. _Coulson's lot are going to go to town on Mulcaire.


----------



## Buckaroo (Nov 4, 2013)

The chicken is in the pot.


----------



## Gingerman (Nov 4, 2013)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 4, 2013)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can/have they mentioned the guilty pleas for the other lot?



I don't think the pleas of other defendants are admissible as evidence. Even where they are co-defendants or alleged members of a criminal conspiracy with those still on trial.

Presumably they can still be summoned to give evidence however.


----------



## laptop (Nov 6, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Can/have they mentioned the guilty pleas for the other lot?
> 
> Defence summary seems to suggest too large couldn't have known. Which is going to tie them up in weeks of defending the stuff that we know they knew about. Can't see the strategy there, cant see the benefit.



The pleas by Mulcaire and three hacks were mentioned on the first day: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24762474

The rules for when pleas can be mentioned are quite complicated - especially in conspiracy trials, obviously.

IIRC, the defence can argue that they shouldn't be, but if they win they may be restricted in the evidence they can bring/


----------



## brogdale (Nov 7, 2013)

"Noddy" & "Big Ears" star today...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/07/news-of-the-world-david-blunkett-phone-hacking-trial

For those who can't be bothered with the Guardian link....voicemail recordings of "Noddy" & lover found in safe at NI, phone records show Brooks, Coulson & other defendents in intense contact at time of hacking and then the prosecution ....





> [play] A tape of a meeting between Coulson trying to get Blunkett to confirm the relationship.... to the jury.



Nice one.


----------



## Brechin Sprout (Nov 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Nope.





> As part of your defence you have the choice of whether or not to go into the witness box and give evidence yourself


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 7, 2013)

As part of _your defence_. Not when the _prosecution _calls you.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 7, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> As part of _your defence_. Not when the _prosecution _calls you.


I think your right ,the defence call their witnesses so i imagine would not call them


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2013)

I believe this is wrong. In a criminal trial, the defendant has the right not to testify. This is wikipedia, I know. I'll try to dig for the actual law



> A defendant in a criminal trial has a choice whether or not to give evidence in the proceedings.



However, the change the last tory regime brought in means that in certain circumstances,

'adverse inferences may be drawn where the accused fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question'

That's the state as we stand as I understand it.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 7, 2013)

The defendant doesn't have to say a word if they don't want to. Inferences will be drawn, however.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Nov 7, 2013)

littlebabyjesus said:


> However, the change the last tory regime brought in means that in certain circumstances,
> 
> 'adverse inferences may be drawn where the accused fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question'
> 
> That's the state as we stand as I understand it.



Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994? I think that was the one that changed the standard police caution too. The right to silence is an ancient common law thing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 7, 2013)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994? I think that was the one that changed the standard police caution too. The right to silence is an ancient common law thing.


That's the one. Strange how the world changes. Loads of people went on a big march against that, but its provisions have been way exceeded by what has come since. The state's powers to act against people have been increased enormously.

Fuck me. 19 years ago.

*feels old*


----------



## DexterTCN (Nov 7, 2013)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994? I think that was the one that changed the standard police caution too. The right to silence is an ancient common law thing.


Not sure we have any of those, any more.

It's not a right of silence though, is it.  It's the onus on the state to prove their claims that is changing/has changed.

There were some police in my house one time and they asked if I had anything to say to the charge (of allowing my brother to use the hired car to pick someone up because I was drunk and refused to drive) and I said ...

"yes...I told you, I don't have any more money, get your hand out of my pocket, stop that it hurts...that wooden thing is really heavy."  

...and they didn't write it down.

Seriously, that happened.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 8, 2013)

It's interesting to note that Wade and Coulson were, due to illegal activities to which others have already pleaded guilty, clearly in a position to blackmail a serving Home Secretary, and according to the evidence we heard yesterday, Blunkett was pretty much pleading with them.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/07/david-blunkett-taped-by-news-of-the-world

It's hardly a surprise when this sort of stuff is going on, that governments are so supine towards Murdoch.

It'll be interesting to see if the prosecution actually follows thorough and makes clear this point about the danger represented to democracy by Murdoch and his minions.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 8, 2013)

I think in England and Wales this is covered by "privilege against self-incrimination" (PSI).

A touch of Irony in the link


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

That's nothing to do with actual criminal trials.The rule is the accused can refuse to say anything at all. Witnesses can be compelled under pain of contempt to do so.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's nothing to do with actual criminal trials.The rule is the accused can refuse to say anything at all. Witnesses can be compelled under pain of contempt to do so.


I believe they can not be compelled to give evidence if such evidence would incriminate them and I think the law I quoted is the correct law in that case.

My understanding of the thread is, it is talking about a defendant and therefore not just a witnesses.

(post 154)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

Yes, as i said. They cannot be compelled at all (regardless of it incriminates them) . Witnesses can.


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, as i said. They cannot be compelled at all (regardless of it incriminates them) . Witnesses can.


if they're all co-defendants, i dont think they can be called by the prosecution.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> if they're all co-defendants, i dont think they can be called by the prosecution.


Witnesses/accused.


----------



## belboid (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Witnesses/accused.


but they'rer all defendants.  If they were separate trials they could be called for sure, but as co-defendants? I thought not - they'd be de facto incriminating themselves


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

belboid said:


> but they'rer all defendants.  If they were separate trials they could be called for sure, but as co-defendants? I thought not - they'd be de facto incriminating themselves


The incriminating stuff doesn't exist.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

They can be called. They can refuse (and give prior notice). That's it.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, as i said. They cannot be compelled at all (regardless of it incriminates them) . Witnesses can.


Are you saying here that a witness can be compelled to give evidence in a criminal trial even if that evidence is self-incriminating and leaves them open to subsequent criminal charges?

As a general rule or as an exception?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

1%er said:


> Are you saying here that a witness can be compelled to give evidence in a criminal trial even if that evidence is self-incriminating and leaves them open to subsequent criminal charges?




Oh god almighty, First off the difference between accusee and wtitness  - second there is no such self-incriminating rule in criminal trials.

Look at your own link and what it refers to ffs


----------



## 1%er (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god almighty, First off the difference between accusee and wtitness  - second there is no such self-incriminating rule in criminal trials.


This is law in England isn't it?
_Self-Incrimination _
_Giving testimony in a trial or other legal proceeding that could subject one to criminal prosecution._
_The right against self-incrimination forbids the government from compelling  any person to give testimonial evidence that would likely incriminate him during a subsequent criminal case.
_


----------



## 1%er (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh god almighty, First off the difference between accusee and wtitness  - second there is no such self-incriminating rule in criminal trials.
> 
> Look at your own link and what it refers to ffs


Yes I made the difference clear, I asked about a witness, I'll ask you again.

Are you claiming that under English law a witness can be compelled to give evidence in a criminal trial that may incriminate them? (as a general rule, clearly they will always be exceptions)


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

1%er said:


> Yes I made the difference clear, I asked about a witness, I'll ask you again.
> 
> Are you claiming that under English law a witness can be compelled to give evidence in a criminal trial that may incriminate them? (as a general rule, clearly they will always be exceptions)


I said the exact opposite twice. What's wrong with you? I even went further and said that the incriminate rule doesn't apply to criminal trials.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

1%er said:


> This is law in England isn't it?
> _Self-Incrimination _
> _Giving testimony in a trial or other legal proceeding that could subject one to criminal prosecution._
> _The right against self-incrimination forbids the government from compelling  any person to give testimonial evidence that would likely incriminate him during a subsequent criminal case._


 US law. What country are we talking about?


----------



## 1%er (Nov 8, 2013)

I believe that a ruling from the ECHR says a witness has some protection from self-incrimination, I believe that applies to criminal trials in the UK. It is also covered under the right to silence (privilege against self-incrimination), as someone mentioned above.


> The concept of right to silence is not specifically mentioned in the European Convention on Human Rights but the European Court of Human Rights has held that
> 
> the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6.



I'd be happy to be corrected with some evidence that says "a witness" (who isn't also a defendant/accused) in a criminal trial can be compelled to give answers that may incriminate them and leave them open to future criminal charges.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

Jesus christ, your original link is not to a discussion of criminal trials. Witnesses can be compelled to testify at criminal trials and if they don't they will get done for contempt. Self-incrimination is neither here nor fucking there in criminal trials. Simple.


----------



## 1%er (Nov 8, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Jesus christ, your original link is not to a discussion of criminal trials. Witnesses can be compelled to testify at criminal trials and if they don't they will get done for contempt. Self-incrimination is neither here nor fucking there in criminal trials. Simple.


That's why I said "irony" about the link, privilege against self-incrimination has been a part of the British legal system for 100's of years.

People who are interested can Google and see if "privilege against self-incrimination" is available to a witness in a criminal trial, it's as simple as that


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 8, 2013)

1%er said:


> That's why I said "irony" about the link, privilege against self-incrimination has been a part of the British legal system for 100's of years.
> 
> People who are interested can Google and see if "privilege against self-incrimination" is available to a witness in a criminal trial, it's as simple as that




What is why you said irony about the link? And look, we're talking about UK criminal law. Not US law. Do, google it.


----------



## Nice one (Nov 9, 2013)

a witness can be compelled to give evidence at a trial under threat of contempt of court. 

The accused/defendent is not compelled to give evidence at their own trial (which is a their legal right) although a judge can give an adverse inference direction to the jury highlighting their refusal to do so and the implications of such.

Andy coulson is a defendent and can't be forced to take the stand.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Nov 9, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They can be called. They can refuse (and give prior notice). That's it.



a simple 'ah, I was wrong' would suffice.


----------



## newbie (Nov 9, 2013)

Bernie Gunther said:


> It's interesting to note that Wade and Coulson were, due to illegal activities to which others have already pleaded guilty, clearly in a position to blackmail a serving Home Secretary, and according to the evidence we heard yesterday, Blunkett was pretty much pleading with them.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/07/david-blunkett-taped-by-news-of-the-world
> 
> ...


they may have been "in a position to blackmail a serving Home Secretary" but there hasn't, so far, been evidence that they attempted to do so, merely that Coulson tried to confirm the story before publication, presumably seeking a quote from Blunkett. 

Any scoop about a senior politician gives rise to the possibility of blackmail, but without proof that undue leverage was applied it's simply journalism.  Imagine what the Telegraph could have done with the expenses info if they'd chosen blackmail rather than publication.

And tbh, I agree with Coulson- the story was in the public interest.  If the Home Secretary, that job in particular because of the responsibilities attached, is having an affair with the publisher of an influential political title- the Spectator, who run Parliamentarian of the Year and so on- then both the influenced readership and the wider public ought to know.  If not, the independence of both HS and publisher is compromised.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2013)

Prophetic stuff from Goodman..



> In an email sent in July 2005 to NOTW managing editor Stuart Kuttner, the paper's royal editor Clive Goodman discusses three contacts who were paid only in cash.
> 
> Mr Goodman writes: "Two are in uniform and we - them, _*you, me, the editor - would all end up in jail if anyone traced their payments*_. They've had Special Branch crawling all over them since we ran a five-par story about an Operation Trident arrest at Clarence House.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 21, 2013)

> Mr Goodman also discussed the arrangement of payments with Mrs Stokes, the court heard. Having heard from Mrs Stokes that payments to "Mr Alexander" - a codename used for private investigator Glenn Mulcaire - were going to be made, Mr Goodman told her: "Fantastic. I won't be found in the Thames wearing concrete wellies tonight."



http://www.channel4.com/news/hacking-trial-email-end-up-in-jail-coulson-goodman-kuttner


----------



## andysays (Nov 22, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Prophetic stuff from Goodman..



Rather careless of him to refer to the untraceablity of the payments in a way which turned out to be so very traceable


----------



## gosub (Jan 7, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ebekah-brooks-pa-notebook-phone-hacking-trial


----------



## pesh (Jan 7, 2014)

i've missed this thread


----------



## laptop (Jan 8, 2014)

> Rebekah Brooks was particularly upset by the disclosure that the News of the World had hacked the voicemail of the missing schoolgirl Milly Dowler and tasked her two personal assistants to check old diaries and bank records to see whether she had been in the country when it happened, an Old Bailey jury heard on Wednesday.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...s-upset-milly-dowler-phone-hacking-old-bailey


----------



## kenny g (Jan 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> a simple 'ah, I was wrong' would suffice.



Butchers was not talking complete bollocks but he is wrong to say there is no principle of right to not self incriminate. There is a general common law principle with ever increasing exceptions.

_R v Director of the Serious Fraud Office ex parte Smith_ [1993] set out the traditional approach where you could refuse to self - incriminate,

http://swarb.co.uk/regina-v-director-of-serious-fraud-office-ex-parte-smith-hl-15-jul-1992/

but allowed for certain exceptions. Over times these exceptions have been extended by statute, with the recent Supreme Court  judgement Phillips (Respondent) v Mulcaire (Appellant) [2012] UKSC 28 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/28.(image1).pdf related to the NoW case recognising and affirming these statutory exceptions. see also http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/inde...haic-and-unjustifiable-survival-from-the-past

CPS guidance on another area where rights to not self - incriminate are removed is of interest http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/dpps_investigatory_powers/ .


----------



## kenny g (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Self-incrimination is neither here nor fucking there in criminal trials. Simple.


 Is quite simply bollocks.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 8, 2014)

Amazed here that this trial is still going on. Is it really such a complicated case? I suppose it must be!!


----------



## kenny g (Jan 8, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Amazed here that this trial is still going on. Is it really such a complicated case? I suppose it must be!!



The defendants must have stacks of money for lawyers. Don't forget the one's who haven't have pled guilty.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 8, 2014)

kenny g said:


> The defendants must have stacks of money for lawyers. Don't forget the one's who haven't have pled guilty.


Oh, ok if they have plenty of funds I can imagine the lawyers will spin it out as long as feasible.


----------



## kenny g (Jan 8, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Oh, ok if they have plenty of funds I can imagine the lawyers will spin it out as long as feasible.



That's the suspicion. The madness is that the costs of running the Court i.e. judge, jury and staff, plus the extended prosecution are borne by the state. My only hope is that by protracting matters they are just adding to their sentence. A guilty plea and strong mitigation when you are so bang to rights is often the best plan.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Amazed here that this trial is still going on. Is it really such a complicated case? I suppose it must be!!


 From the outset April was mooted as a possible end-point.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> From the outset April was mooted as a possible end-point.



Some potentially interesting dynamics regarding News International's influence on the next General Election then ...


----------



## newbie (Jan 13, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25716344


> Mrs Brooks had spent the weekend of her arrest holding a series of meetings in the Oxfordshire village of Enstone, the court heard.


and


> Mrs Brooks, 45, of Churchill, Oxfordshire, denies further charges of hacking and conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office.



who lives in Enstone?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2014)

Cameron.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Cameron.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jan 13, 2014)

kenny g said:


> That's the suspicion. The madness is that the costs of running the Court i.e. judge, jury and staff, plus the extended prosecution are borne by the state. My only hope is that by protracting matters they are just adding to their sentence. A guilty plea and strong mitigation when you are so bang to rights is often the best plan.



Obvi sub judus or whatever, but it will be very interesting to see what form defence takes. Is it libelous to suggest she is probably a skilled bullshitter? Can she pull off a "clay Davis" and convince a jury of her innocence? Or is the only person convinced that she will be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat Mrs Brooks herself, and her bullshit skills only working on herself? When you have the very best lawyers money can buy, can you trust them to act in your own interests and tell you you're onto a loser? Or will they tell you what you you stand a chance just to keep coining the dollar such a lengthy trial would earn them?  They must have had a "damage limitation, plead guilty early" chat at some point. They must have convinced her she stands a chance. Presumably she is the top prize for prosecutor's. And the insulating layer between Murdoch and a trial. Who could she trust? Very few people.

One thing is for sure, 2014 is a stressful time to be Rebecca Brooks.


----------



## Sirena (Jan 13, 2014)

gosub said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ebekah-brooks-pa-notebook-phone-hacking-trial


I work with Cheryl Carter's son.  He was driving the car that took the boxes of notebooks and he has already given evidence as a prosecution witness.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 13, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Cameron.



His constituency house is actually only about 3 miles SW of Enstone village.

Surely not? Really?


----------



## newbie (Jan 14, 2014)

if that's the case it's a massive story, surely?  

however

Newssniffer shows that version 2 of the story contained the phrase



			
				BBC at 16.05 said:
			
		

> After Mrs Brooks resigned as CEO in July 2011, Mr Hanna spent the weekend in the Oxfordshire village of Enstone, where she was staying at  the  time.


which changed to 



			
				BBC at 16.40 said:
			
		

> After Mrs Brooks resigned as CEO in July 2011, Mr Hanna spent the whole weekend in the Oxfordshire village of Enstone, where she was holding a series of meetings.



then, in the version I read at 18.44 (but not cached by newssniffer) to


> Mrs Brooks had spent the weekend of her arrest holding a series of meetings in the Oxfordshire village of Enstone, the court heard.


which still seems to be current.

Hacked Off say


> Mark Bryant-Heron, for the prosecution, gave the jury at the Old Bailey a timeline of the events of 17 July.
> 
> In the morning, he said, Mrs Brooks and a security guard had travelled by car from Enstone in Gloucestershire to Lewisham police station in London where she was due to be questioned. Another associate of hers followed in a second car.
> 
> At 12.02pm, shortly after she arrived at the police station, Mrs Brooks was arrested.



they all say Enstone not Dean.  So the smell of fish may come from a red herring, and there's a perfectly innocent explanation for her spending that, of all, weekends, _that_ close to the PM.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

Brilliant!
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/14/phone-hacking-trial-cctv-charlie-brooks-laptop
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/14/phone-hacking-trial-cctv-charlie-brooks-laptop



> Both Charlie and Rebekah Brooks deny conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by hiding material from detectives.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

Utterly fucked now.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 14, 2014)

STOP THIS FILTH!


----------



## elbows (Jan 14, 2014)

Some hilarious text messages in that article.



> "Broadsword calling Danny Boy. Pizza delivered and the chicken is in the pot," the security contractor wrote in a text message.
> 
> The jury has already heard this was a Richard Burton line from the war film Where Eagles Dare.
> 
> ...





> About 5pm, one of the security aides texted Geddes: "Filth all over underground car park. Ref Pizzagate".


----------



## brogdale (Jan 14, 2014)

On C4 News they showed the bit of that car-park CCTV footage where Charlie and his goons realise they've lost the hidden laptop....very funny! LOL, in fact, and I don't mean _"lots of love" _

__

That car park cleaner who found the stuff...well done that man.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 15, 2014)

Not exactly cyberpunk is it with ruthless corp mercenarys
 Syndicate the news international version your handpick team of mercanrys wander aimlessy around a carpark


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 15, 2014)

So, what will she get if found guilty?

9 months in an open prison to be released to live in splendor?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> So, what will she get if found guilty?
> 
> 9 months in an open prison to be released to live in splendor?




will write a book in prison. Thats what every high profile fucknut does with the time


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> will write a book in prison. Thats what every high profile fucknut does with the time


 Sounds like potential for a competition to guess the title?


----------



## pesh (Jan 15, 2014)

that shrug that Mr Perkins gives has made this trial for me so far.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2014)

> *Peter Jukes* ‏@*peterjukes*  19m
> BREAKING: Lesbian Lovers was the magazine hidden the Jiffy Bag according to Counsel for Charlie Brooks



"_LOL_"


----------



## brogdale (Jan 15, 2014)

> *Gaetan Portal* ‏@*GaetanPortal*  3m
> #*hacking* Witness is asked if he saw said magazine - Lesbian Lovers "If I had seen it maybe I would have taken it" MUCH LAUGHTER IN COURT!


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 15, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> will write a book in prison. Thats what every high profile fucknut does with the time



Not to mention some newspaper articles and appearances on Question Time/Any Questions.


----------



## kenny g (Jan 17, 2014)

Just read through some of the trial on http://fothom.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/the-pizzagate-tapes/ and it does seem a lawyer fest.


----------



## laptop (Jan 17, 2014)

Interestingly, if I remember rightly, yesterday's trial report in the _Times_ concerned Charlie Brooks's attempts to hide porn from the police.

That'll be a fair and balanced coverage of the issues of corporate ethics and liability raised by the charges, then 

PS: found it in the _Telegraph_:



> [Hero cleaner] Mr Nascimento again denied seeing the material, saying: “I don't understand English, the only thing I noticed was the computers.”
> 
> Mr Brooks smiled in the dock as [his brief] Mr Saunders replied: “There wasn't much writing in the magazine.”



E2A: what looks like an offensive and entirely pointless attempt to smear the witness:



> Mr Saunders also told the jury the satchel had a week earlier contained £1,000 in cash in an envelope. Mr Nascimento denied any knowledge of the cash.



The smear only works if the rest of his evidence is true, is why it's pointless.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 17, 2014)

newbie said:


> if that's the case it's a massive story, surely?
> 
> 
> Hacked Off say
> ...



All very interesting, but Hacked Off need to do more fact checking , because as in all the other links about it, Enstone is not in Gloucestershire.

As Wiki confirms.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> All very interesting, but Hacked Off need to do more fact checking , because as in all the other links about it, Enstone is not in Gloucestershire.
> 
> As Wiki confirms.


Apart from that place in Gloucs near cheltenham race course, called Enstone. That they're talking about.


----------



## killer b (Jan 17, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> will write a book in prison. Thats what every high profile fucknut does with the time





taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Not to mention some newspaper articles and appearances on Question Time/Any Questions.


unlikely. it'll be worth her while to keep schtum. I reckon a quiet life beckons, with rupert's millions. whatever the verdict.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Apart from that place in Gloucs near cheltenham race course, called Enstone. That they're talking about.


Other reports of all the cell data evidence (eg http://fothom.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/hacking-trial-live-tweets-15-jan/) point towards it being Enstone in Oxfordshire, not least by reference to Enstone Manor Farm.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Other reports of all the cell data evidence (eg http://fothom.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/hacking-trial-live-tweets-15-jan/) point towards it being Enstone in Oxfordshire, not least by reference to Enstone Manor Farm.


That's evidence for a  different day. But i think i must be the one talked about before on this thread. But...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's evidence for a  different day. But i think i must be the one talked about before on this thread. But...


I can find a single reference to Enstone Park in Jukes' tweets for 14 January evidence, but the context would seem to suggest he meant Enstone (Oxfordshire) not Enstone (Gloucestershire) - eg “Counsel for Hanna shows the logical route to drive from Enstone Farm to Jubilee Barn – past Chipping Norton”.

http://fothom.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/hacking-trial-live-tweets-14-jan/

http://goo.gl/maps/NU0hl


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> That's evidence for a  different day. But i think i must be the one talked about before on this thread. But...



It's all in Oxfordshire, Enstone, Enstone Manor Farm, Jubilee Barn etc.

In fact the map seen by the jury in association with Cutts' evidence, shows that the mobile phone activity from the Brooks' and their goons took place literally all around, (but not at!), Dave's constituency house at Dean nr. Spelsbury.


----------



## kenny g (Jan 17, 2014)

It's clearly the Oxfordshire one. Cutts evidence had quite a few problems though, especially when he admitted he used the word "at" when he meant within 1/2 a mile. His claims to be independent because he merely asked an investigating officer for a copy of the defence statement which he hadn't been supplied with was laughable. 

The clumsy smear of the cleaner with the crappy £1000 story isn't going to help Brooks at all. If the cleaner was up to no good he would have nicked the laptop and been done with it. Even if the cleaner did nick £1000 and read a porn mag it would hardly detract from the video.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 17, 2014)

kenny g said:


> If the cleaner was up to no good he would have nicked the laptop and been done with it.



Two laptops and an iPad! And a souvenir WEF bag!


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Two laptops and an iPad! And a souvenir WEF bag!



aren't you forgetting the literature?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 17, 2014)

brogdale said:


> aren't you forgetting the literature?


I don't read English so I wouldn't have noticed.


----------



## kenny g (Jan 17, 2014)

Interesting that cameron's residence is bang between the two places though - and drivable as a short cut avoiding chipping norton- http://www.celebrityhousepictures.com/david-cameron.php?housephotos=2


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2014)

kenny g said:


> Interesting that cameron's residence is bang between the two places though - and drivable as a short cut avoiding chipping norton- http://www.celebrityhousepictures.com/david-cameron.php?housephotos=2



Just a short Raisa ride, eh?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Apart from that place in Gloucs near cheltenham race course, called Enstone. That they're talking about.



When I first read your post I thought 'shit, you're right!' because I didn't know about the Gloucestershire one, but the subsequent posts still suggest Hacked Off should have checked as carefully as Dave Cinzano has.

Admittedly I should have checked more carefully too mind ...


----------



## elbows (Jan 20, 2014)

> He added that Mr Hanna had explained how his job included ensuring Mrs Brooks had the correct security. About 10 to 15 minutes after discussing her but during a wider discussion about the NoW, Mr Hernandez said: “He mentioned one time that he dug a hole in his garden and burnt stuff.”
> 
> Mr Hernandez continued” “I asked him if it was papers. He didn’t reply…”
> 
> ...





> In answer William Clegg QC, for Mr Hanna, Mr Hernandez said that he had drunk about four pints of ordinary-strength lager that night. Mr Hanna had had a bottle of wine.
> 
> It was a warm summer night, wasn’t it? Mr Clegg asked. Mr Hernandez agreed it had been.
> 
> ...



http://hackinginquiry.org/news/news...-head-burnt-stuff-in-back-garden-trial-hears/


----------



## brogdale (Jan 21, 2014)

Trial up and running..again.

I'm sure we've mentioned this before, but worth saying again...Peter Jukes is performing an admirable service for all of us interested in following this trial.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 25, 2014)

> Up to 10 mobile phones and computer gadgets potentially linked to Rebekah Brooks have never been found by police, the hacking trial heard today.



Who'd have thought they'd have been sooooo careless with their devices?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...er-been-found-hacking-trial-told-9084174.html


----------



## brogdale (Jan 27, 2014)

Peter Jukes has been tweeting the interesting evidence from NOTW (& former Trinity Group) journo Dan Evans. The jury was told today of Evans' September guilty plea to hacking charges, (the fifth ex-NOTW employee to do so), and Evans has recalled his meeting with & hiring by Coulson and editorial meetings chaired by Coulson.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 27, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Who'd have thought they'd have been sooooo careless with their devices?
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...er-been-found-hacking-trial-told-9084174.html


TBF, it's pretty obvious that they're assuming the existence of these devices from the DHCP records on the router, so it is _conceivable_ that some of the devices may well have been those of passing visitors (such as cabinet ministers? Or Prime Ministers? ), rather than the Brooks' own. Although some of them *do* seem to be identifiable as theirs, too. Tsk, how careless of them!


----------



## Dan U (Jan 28, 2014)

> *Dominic Casciani* ‏@BBCDomC11m
> BREAKING: Dan Evans says he played a recording of a hacked voicemail to editor Andy Coulson. Mr Coulson said "brilliant", court hears.



whoops


----------



## Dan U (Jan 28, 2014)

> *Peter Jukes* ‏@peterjukes30m
> BREAKING: Evans played Andy Coulson tape of voicemail hacking of D Craig. "Andy came over... wanted to hear the tape... XXXX was around...





> *Peter Jukes* ‏@peterjukes29m
> "Andy wanted to preserve the tape... He said to me. Make a copy of the tape. Put in Jiffy bag. Have it dropped in anonymously" says Evans





> *Peter Jukes* ‏@peterjukes26m
> "We'll stick it in the safe," said Coulson to Evans of replicated tape. Another NOTW journo said "Look what I've found."



[





> *Peter Jukes* ‏@peterjukes26m
> "What happened to original tape," asks Edis. "I destroyed it... had other identifying messages... in time honoured way I shredded it."


----------



## Dan U (Jan 28, 2014)

Looks like the prosecution getting Evans past drug use out in the open as well, assuming so it takes some sting out of the defence?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2014)

Prosecution case closed this afternoon. Jury break till Monday 17th Feb.


----------



## Dan U (Feb 19, 2014)

so, it's back then.

Brooks defence begins tomorrow morning. Lots of new emails being submitted by the looks of things

now then...

Peter Jukes @peterjukes
Follow
BREAKING: email from Brooks to James Murdoch on 11/07/11 claims Tony Blair offered to help over phone hacking scandal day after NOTW closed


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2014)

Very interesting. Didn't expect that.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 19, 2014)

The day after the notw closed was the point when the Murdoch brand was just about at its most toxic. Interesting timing.


----------



## gosub (Feb 19, 2014)

oh Murdoch really is pissed about what happened with his wife. Letting that come out. Presume he is paying Brookes legal fees.

Was interesting at the Mandela funeral Blair seemed a bit of pariah.  The only real thing that had changed was the Murdoch marriage break.  Start an illegal war yeah we can live with that, but allegedly has an affair with a media moguls wife - we can't afford to be seen with you


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2014)

Letting? Who do you think produced it?


----------



## pesh (Feb 19, 2014)

gosub said:


> oh Murdoch really is pissed about what happened with his wife. Letting that come out. Presume he is paying Brookes legal fees.
> 
> Was interesting at the Mandela funeral Blair seemed a bit of pariah.  The only real thing that had changed was the Murdoch marriage break.  Start an illegal war yeah we can live with that, but allegedly has an affair with a media moguls wife - we can't afford to be seen with you



i must have missed that memo... fucking megalol


----------



## Dan U (Feb 19, 2014)

Guardian has more on it. He offered to be an advisor on a 'between us' basis to Brooks and the Murdochs

Will link when off phone in a bit unless it is on here before. 

Murdoch could finish Blair with this and the Chilton inquiry


----------



## Dan U (Feb 19, 2014)

The email from Brooks discussing it

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...19/rebekah-brooks-email-tony-blair-advice-pdf


----------



## Dan U (Feb 19, 2014)

probably the more interesting part of that email is the stuff around setting up an 'independent' inquiry like Hutton and when to publish its finding exonerating you. truly, no shame.


----------



## gosub (Feb 19, 2014)

Was just writing the same thing, that's what it reads like to me but the grammar isn't great.


The sleeping pills bit though is good advice. And explains how he sleeps at night.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Feb 19, 2014)

pesh said:


> i must have missed that memo... fucking megalol


Bloody hell, me too! I've got to catch up on the whole case to be honest, no idea what's going on at the moment.


----------



## laptop (Feb 19, 2014)

Dan U said:


> probably the more interesting part of that email is the stuff around setting up an 'independent' inquiry like Hutton and when to publish its finding exonerating you. truly, no shame.



Definitely this. Next chapter opens here, I hope 

(Brooks should have been fired for her lack of memo-writing style, clearly.)


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 19, 2014)

laptop said:


> (Brooks should have been fired for her lack of memo-writing style, clearly.)



That, and PUTTING EVERYTHING IN FUCKING EMAILS


----------



## gosub (Feb 19, 2014)

1%er said:


> It is interesting that to-date nothing has come to light re old man Murdoch. The police and prosecution seem to have lots of historic documents and computers etc yet no paper or electronic trail to him, as yet.
> 
> From interviews I've seen and read by some of his former editors, I always got the impression "he had his finger on the pulse" and knew what was going on inside his UK based papers
> 
> It all looks damning now, but the defense team have known what was coming for a long time and they clearly believe they have answers to all these allegations, it will be interesting hear them, in time.



I suspect Murdoch senior doesn't do emails.  Contact will be either via phone & skype or sent to his PA and printed out


----------



## laptop (Feb 19, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> That, and PUTTING EVERYTHING IN FUCKING EMAILS



She could have left voicemail


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 19, 2014)

I wonder how she coped without Cheryl to look after her?

“Charlie! Charlie! I installed a Windows update and now my keyboard's upside down!”


----------



## brogdale (Feb 19, 2014)

Dan U said:


> so, it's back then.
> 
> Brooks defence begins tomorrow morning. Lots of new emails being submitted by the looks of things
> 
> ...



So much in there, but this part caught my eye...



> He said the inquiry would be "Hutton style" – a reference to Lord Hutton's inquiry into the death of David Kelly – and would "clear" her, but warned that "shortcomings" would have to be accepted as a result of the report.



Wonder what the LD minister of state at the Home Office makes of that implicit admission from Blair that the inquiries like Hutton's have outcomes that are predetermined?


----------



## Dan U (Feb 19, 2014)

Blair responds...



> _“This was Mr Blair simply giving informal advice over the phone. He made it absolutely clear to Ms Brooks that, though he knew nothing personally about the facts of the case, in a situation as serious as this it was essential to have a fully transparent and independent process to get to the bottom of what had happened. That inquiry should be led by credible people, get all the facts out there and that if anything wrong were found there should be immediate action taken and the changes to the organisation made so that they could not happen again._
> 
> _“Mr Blair said that if what he was being told by her was correct, and there had been no wrongdoing, then a finding to that effect by a credible Inquiry would be far better than an internal and therefore less credible investigation.”_


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2014)

Excellent. Setting up a whitewash becomes an act of pure public generosity designed to uncover the truth - and at the same time root out evil-doers.


----------



## agricola (Feb 19, 2014)

Dan U said:


> Blair responds...



Even his claims to have not known that Rupert wouldnt be at home sounded more credible than that.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 19, 2014)

christ, he more or less said to her 'look mate, you wanna know how to do a whitewash, I'M the go-to on that!'


----------



## 1%er (Feb 19, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> That, and PUTTING EVERYTHING IN FUCKING EMAILS


She must have known "others" would read that email at some point.

James Murdoch alleged reply was "What are you doing on email?"


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2014)

1%er said:


> She must have known "others" would read that email at some point.
> 
> James Murdoch alleged reply was "What are you doing on email?"


Where'd you see that? Because that itself is something the prosecution could use to help establish conspiracy.


----------



## Dan U (Feb 19, 2014)

He said it before, in reply to her initial email. It looked to me like in the context of another matter.

It's on the full email I linked to earlier


----------



## 1%er (Feb 19, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Where'd you see that? Because that itself is something the prosecution could use to help establish conspiracy.


It was in the Mirror bottom of the page
"The son of Rupert Murdoch, who was chief executive of News International before Brooks, replied at 3.53pm: "What are you doing on email?"


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2014)

Yes, thanks both. Don't know if the prosecution made much of that. I certainly would have.


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 19, 2014)

Dan U said:


> Blair responds...





> “This was Mr Blair simply giving informal advice over the phone. He made it absolutely clear to Ms Brooks that, though he knew nothing personally about the facts of the case, in a situation as serious as this it was essential to have a fully transparent and independent process to get to the bottom of what had happened. That inquiry should be led by credible people, get all the facts out there and that if anything wrong were found there should be immediate action taken and the changes to the organisation made so that they could not happen again.
> 
> “Mr Blair said that if what he was being told by her was correct, and there had been no wrongdoing, then a finding to that effect by a credible Inquiry would be far better than an internal and therefore less credible investigation.”



Informal advice for an hour? It's a close thing but I think I now loathe that wanker more than I loathed Thatcher.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 19, 2014)

Forgive my ignorance on this subject, I haven't been able to follow the case very closely. I heard today the prosecution raised the subject that Blair communicated with Rebecca Brooks. But what was the benefit to their case of doing this?


----------



## laptop (Feb 19, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Forgive my ignorance on this subject, I haven't been able to follow the case very closely. I heard today the prosecution raised the subject that Blair communicated with Rebecca Brooks. But what was the benefit to their case of doing this?



Have you read her summary? It speaks of a plan for a cover-up.


----------



## Dan U (Feb 19, 2014)

And she is being done for conspiracy as well.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 19, 2014)

laptop said:


> Have you read her summary? It speaks of a plan for a cover-up.


Oh, ok ... yes, I suppose that is an angle.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 19, 2014)

Something just doesn't add up, why would she write an email like that. This was just a week before Charlie "misplaced" the laptop (17th june 11 was the date on the video of him in the garage) and a month before NI closed NotW, she and all the others would have been told not to put anything about the case in emails or texts and even if she wasn't, she would have been aware this information would not remain private.

She was arrested (by appointment) the following month, I'm sure that wasn't unexpected, so why write such a detailed memo knowing that it is likely she will be arrested and it could/will be seen by others?


----------



## where to (Feb 19, 2014)

1%er said:


> Something just doesn't add up, why would she write an email like that. This was just a week before Charlie "misplaced" the laptop (17th june 11 was the date on the video of him in the garage) and a month before NI closed NotW, she and all the others would have been told not to put anything about the case in emails or texts and even if she wasn't, she would have been aware this information would not remain private.
> 
> She was arrested (by appointment) the following month, I'm sure that wasn't unexpected, so why write such a detailed memo knowing that it is likely she will be arrested and it could/will be seen by others?


If I'm going down and bringing everyone else with me.


----------



## laptop (Feb 19, 2014)

where to said:


> If I'm going down and bringing everyone else with me.



Which, if true, would make the defence case interesting. When does the court next sit?


----------



## bendeus (Feb 19, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> Informal advice for an hour? It's a close thing but I think I now loathe that wanker more than I loathed Thatcher.



I have also crossed that rubicon, I think. He's a ghastly, amoral fucker of the first stripe.


----------



## Dan U (Feb 19, 2014)

laptop said:


> Which, if true, would make the defence case interesting. When does the court next sit?



She begins her defence tomorrow.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2014)

imposs1904 said:


> Informal advice for an hour? It's a close thing but I think I now loathe that wanker more than I loathed Thatcher.


pity it's taken so many years to get there.


----------



## laptop (Feb 19, 2014)

Dan U said:


> She begins her defence tomorrow.



Pity I'm not in a position to pull a sickie


----------



## 1%er (Feb 19, 2014)

where to said:


> If I'm going down and bringing everyone else with me.


I'm sure she has bigger stories than her side of a conversation involving only two people, albeit one of them an ex pm  

It just doesn't make sense (to me) that she would send an email like that at a time like that. Why would she do that?


----------



## Dan U (Feb 19, 2014)

Believing what Blair told her. The general attitude that pervades these people in power, the rules are for us, not them. 

Supreme arrogance essentially.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 19, 2014)

Gary Gibbons on what impact this is likely to have on Blair's apparent recent attempts to better secure his ‘legacy’ in the UK by establishing himself “as a man rooted in the Labour party and still loyal to it”:



> ...when [Miliband] checks the timeline to discover that Tony Blair was having his hour long natter with Rebekah Brooks just an hour or so after he, Ed Miliband, was giving a speech and press conference in London, repeating his demand for Rebekah Brooks to be sacked, a door that was pretty much shut will be bolted with heavy furniture packed behind it.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 19, 2014)

Streathamite said:


> christ, he more or less said to her 'look mate, you wanna know how to do a whitewash, I'M the go-to on that!'



To be fair, the Hutton inquiry proved that.

I mean, if I was an elderly billionaire psychopath wanting to get my chief minion cleared of a bunch of horrific stuff with no questions asked I'd be tempted to call on Tone for some expertise ...


----------



## bendeus (Feb 19, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> To be fair, the Hutton inquiry proved that.
> 
> I mean, if I was an elderly billionaire psychopath wanting to get my chief minion cleared of a bunch of horrific stuff with no questions asked I'd be tempted to call on Tone for some expertise ...



I'd be happy for him to wait for a while with my wife in the reception room while I got ready to receive him as well


----------



## newbie (Feb 19, 2014)

who called who, and why?  Brookes was close to Cameron, and instrumental in turning NI from Nu-Lab to Tories.  Why would Blair call her to offer advice, or, if it was the other way round, why would she call him?


----------



## pesh (Feb 19, 2014)

i missed the whole Wendy <3 Tone thing, i think i subconsciously block him and any related articles out as soon as i see his face.
this article has got me up to date and tickled me no end though.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-murdoch-deconstruction-friendship-wendi-deng


----------



## 1%er (Feb 19, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Gary Gibbons on what impact this is likely to have on Blair's apparent recent attempts to better secure his ‘legacy’ in the UK by establishing himself “as a man rooted in the Labour party and still loyal to it”:



It would be an interesting read to look at the evidence given during the Leveson inquiry under oath and what comes out as fact during this trial.

Some other stuff from that blog:


> In a statement from his office, Mr Blair has said this was all about him trying to make sure that everyone got to the bottom of the matter. His statement says he was “simply giving informal advice over the phone” and simply recommending that “it was essential to have a fully transparent and independent process to get to the bottom of what had happened”.
> 
> But the police inquiry already announced was supposed to do that. Some might read it as an ally trying to help the Murdoch empire through the firestorm and help in a continuing and emotionally supportive way too.
> 
> ...


----------



## imposs1904 (Feb 20, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> pity it's taken so many years to get there.



Sometimes it takes a few years before you can finally get over your first hate.


----------



## gosub (Feb 20, 2014)

newbie said:


> who called who, and why?  Brookes was close to Cameron, and instrumental in turning NI from Nu-Lab to Tories.  Why would Blair call her to offer advice, or, if it was the other way round, why would she call him?



He must have called her, if it was the other way  round there would be an invoice.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 20, 2014)

Whatever she denies, looks like she's upset the court artist!


----------



## pesh (Feb 20, 2014)

Zombie Rebekah scares me


----------



## laptop (Feb 20, 2014)

Only when I read the printed edition on the bus this morning did I see the last line of that email: 




			
				Rebekah Brooks said:
			
		

> [Blair] is sending more notes later.



Even though they'll probably be cast in a very careful and lawyerly form, I look forward to seeing these


----------



## thriller (Feb 20, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Whatever she denies, looks like she's upset the court artist!




wouldn't dare try that shit with Junior Soprano:


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2014)

They don't even get to draw in court here. They have to leave the courtroom before they start the sketch.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 21, 2014)

Today's attempt....


----------



## Wilf (Feb 21, 2014)

The trial seems to have taken a personal turn today:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...rooks-affair-andy-coulson-phone-hacking-trial
Maybe I'm a bit slow, but I'm not clear about the significance of the brooks-coulson affair (which she is seking to minimise(kind of) in today's evidence.  What's in it for the police/prosecution case, beyond proving they were close and were perhaps more likely to have shared information  about malpractice?  The fact that they were key players in the Murodoch Empire gives them enough proximity, day to day contact, common cause surely.  I'm obviously missing something.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 21, 2014)




----------



## brogdale (Feb 21, 2014)

Wilf said:


> The trial seems to have taken a personal turn today:
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...rooks-affair-andy-coulson-phone-hacking-trial
> Maybe I'm a bit slow, but I'm not clear about the significance of the brooks-coulson affair (which she is seking to minimise(kind of) in today's evidence.  What's in it for the police/prosecution case, beyond proving they were close and were perhaps more likely to have shared information  about malpractice?  The fact that they were key players in the Murodoch Empire gives them enough proximity, day to day contact, common cause surely.  I'm obviously missing something.



Shown to be deceitful, unreliable (to their respective partners), secretive and more likely to conspire; I suppose?


----------



## Wilf (Feb 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Shown to be deceitful, unreliable (to their respective partners), secretive and more likely to conspire; I suppose?


I did wonder that and in turn whether she was getting her defence in today with the 'personal turmoil in my life at that time' comments. That might become a wider 'eye off the ball' defence about the hacking itself, if needed.  Same time I did wonder if the prosecution had something _else_ in mind other than the usual mud sticks approach.

edit: unless it has some other significance I haven't grasped, it could actually backfire and do the seemingly unimaginable of humanising Brooks and Coulson.  Mind, the Wendy Deng - Tony Blair thing hasn't exactly rehabilitated _him_...


----------



## elbows (Feb 21, 2014)

I can't say I was overjoyed when the prosecution brought it up because if they had tons of the sort of killer evidence I'd have liked to form their case, it would have been superfluous.

I don't know if it will backfire but it certainly plays to what I presume to be her strengths, performing narratives on a fairly human/emotional level.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 21, 2014)

Amongst all the love triangle guff....



> On Thursday *Mrs Brooks said she had never heard of Mulcaire while she was News of the World editor*.



Hmmm.....but surely, there'd be masses of email evidence to show that false? Oh, hang on a minute....what happened to all that evidence?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 21, 2014)




----------



## 1%er (Feb 21, 2014)

Wilf said:


> The trial seems to have taken a personal turn today:
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...rooks-affair-andy-coulson-phone-hacking-trial
> Maybe I'm a bit slow, but I'm not clear about the significance of the brooks-coulson affair (which she is seking to minimise(kind of) in today's evidence.  What's in it for the police/prosecution case, beyond proving they were close and were perhaps more likely to have shared information  about malpractice?  The fact that they were key players in the Murodoch Empire gives them enough proximity, day to day contact, common cause surely.  I'm obviously missing something.


I think the point being made isn't "just" about having an affair, I think what is significant is the fact that they both got married to other people while they were having the affair.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 21, 2014)

1%er said:


> I think the point being made isn't "just" about having an affair, I think what is significant is the fact that they both got married to other people while they were having the affair.


...whilst each of their papers is alleged to have been balls-deep in phonehacking and other dodgy practices - so if one is judged to have been culpable in those practices, then the level of believability of the other's protestations of innocence might conceivably be diminished.


----------



## 1%er (Feb 21, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> ...whilst each of their papers is alleged to have been balls-deep in phonehacking and other dodgy practices - so if one is judged to have been culpable in those practices, then the level of believability of the other's protestations of innocence might conceivably be diminished.


I think it is about showing what the person is really like, how honest they are, how willing to deceive, the true character behind the public image.

The prosecution when summing up will paint a picture of someone who has lied and deceived the people closest to them, a person of poor moral values, someone who should not be believed. That's part of their job, undermined their defense by claiming "you can't trust this person".


----------



## T & P (Feb 21, 2014)

Also there is the argument that if one of the pair is considered to be guilty by the jury, then it is more likely they would have told the other one about the hacking practices if they were intimate for years and in love. Which would make the claim by the other party that they were not aware of what was going on at the time more difficult to believe.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 21, 2014)

Cant we just revolt    get real and kill  trial these pricks traditionally?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 21, 2014)

....and this latest one...bit Vanessa Redgrave, no?


----------



## kenny g (Feb 22, 2014)

You can't be got for conspiracy with your husband/ wife but if there is a third party involved then it solves that problem. Nothing better than a boy friend/ mutual friend to be part of the conspiracy as it enables there to be a link between the married parties to the conspiracy. Plus all the deceitfulness elements can be used to pull on some of the juror's sensibilities. The charges in this case are beautifully framed for very little wriggle room for the defendants.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 25, 2014)

Once the trial is over, and we find whether or not the accused are guilty or innocent, we might be able to look at this series of quotes and quantify just how many lies it contains:-



> Rebekah Brooks has told the phone-hacking trial *she did not realise the practice was illegal* when she was editor of the News of the World
> 
> Mrs Brooks said *she "didn't think anybody, me included, knew it was illegal"*.
> 
> ...


----------



## laptop (Mar 13, 2014)

Bloody hell - opportunist argument or what?

Hasn't someone who is alive *already been convicted* for giving the _NotW_ said phone book?




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> 13 March 2014 Last updated at 17:28
> 
> *  Diana 'gave royal phone book to NoW'*
> 
> ...


----------



## laptop (Apr 25, 2014)

The BBC said:
			
		

> Mr Coulson... was also asked why he got an assistant to print off all his emails in 2006 shortly before his former royal editor at the paper, Clive Goodman, pleaded guilty to phone hacking.
> 
> When asked if that was because he was going to delete them, he replied: "No."
> 
> ...



* buys a ton of paper and engages a solicitor *

"You can't touch me, plod, it's all under privilege"


----------



## brogdale (Apr 25, 2014)

laptop said:


> * buys a ton of paper and engages a solicitor *





> The emails were delivered to Mr Coulson's solicitor, *protected by legal privilege, and the prosecution has not had access to them*


...errr...am I missing something here?

Anyone know about this?


----------



## cesare (Apr 25, 2014)

Communication between client and lawyer isn't generally disclosable. I'm surprised they haven't asked for them to be disclosed from IT backups though and then if not forthcoming (say for example, that the backups don't exist) then for copies of the email evidence which is clearly in existence, not asking for the accompanying lawyer/client privileged covering note or whatever.


----------



## laptop (Apr 25, 2014)

brogdale said:


> ...errr...am I missing something here?
> 
> Anyone know about this?



I'm not sure it'd hold up under pressure any more than cesare is. But it seems to have worked here...

(Certainly, if you find yourself in a cell with pen and paper, it's sound advice to form your notes as a letter addressed to your lawyer. Or a lawyer you'd like to hire if you get out.)


----------



## brogdale (May 6, 2014)

Jukes is producing some interesting tweets about Justice Saunders' advice to jury today about conspiracy...

https://twitter.com/peterjukes


----------



## laptop (May 7, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Jukes is producing some interesting tweets about Justice Saunders' advice to jury today about conspiracy...
> 
> https://twitter.com/peterjukes



Unless Peter Jukes is cherry-picking the bits that are bad for the defence, the judge on balance seems pretty irritated with their arguments?


----------



## Dan U (May 7, 2014)

http://fothom.wordpress.com/2014/05...aunders-directions-to-the-hacking-trial-jury/

^^ might help


----------



## killer b (May 7, 2014)

unless you're following live, Jukes' tweets can be a bit difficult to follow. The blog has a summary though

http://fothom.wordpress.com/2014/05...rections-to-the-hacking-trial-jury/#more-2648


----------



## killer b (May 7, 2014)

ha! snap.


----------



## Buckaroo (May 19, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...coulson-conspiracy-phone-hacking-milly-dowler

"But for example how does this work thing manifest itself, do we limit stuff until we absolutely have to, " she asked adding: "I can't discuss my work problems with you any more, or vice versa."
Edis put it to the jury: "That's quite a revealing way of putting it", telling them it means they were discussing work concerns at the time.

Prosecution claims letter is evidence of conspiracy. They were having an affair and they talked about work. Guilty of nothing more than being in love m'lud!


----------



## MrSki (Jun 11, 2014)

Jury sent out to consider verdicts.


----------



## brogdale (Jun 11, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Jury sent out to consider verdicts.


 Could be a long one?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2014)

Coulson guilty on count one, conspiring with others to hack phones between 2000 & 2006.

Rebekah Brooks, Charlie Brooks, Kuttner, Hanna and Carter not guilty, with more verdicts pending.


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

British justice is more about how much cash you can bung your QC.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 24, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Coulson guilty on count one, conspiring with others to hack phones between 2000 & 2006.
> 
> Rebekah Brooks, Charlie Brooks, Kuttner, Hanna and Carter not guilty, with more verdicts pending.


Coulson guilty but Rebekah & Charlie Brooks not sounds like a bizarre outcome.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 24, 2014)

Hmmmmm


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

How can the editor of a newspaper not know what was going on? Friends in the Cotswalds?


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 24, 2014)

Blimey.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

Looks like Brooks' sob-story defence worked. Almost as if she were a sleb.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2014)

Pity the poor judge, who had bought a new outfit and everything


----------



## pesh (Jun 24, 2014)

What a crock of shit.


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

How can we as a people be taken the piss out of so much? How much can they get away with?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 24, 2014)

Fuck's sake.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2014)

Here's some of the verdicts in more detail:


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2014)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2014)




----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 24, 2014)

It's amazing what being great mates with the PM can get you.


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

I think a question of whether the term "justice" can be applied to the UK Judicial system. It takes the urine smelling liquid.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 24, 2014)

Here I am struggling with how the jury did not arrive at the conclusion that _someone_ must have been feeling a tad guilty when they tried to dispose of the laptop.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 24, 2014)

teqniq said:


> Here I am struggling with how the jury did not arrive at the conclusion that [I}someone[/I] must have been feeling a tad guilty when they tried to dispose of the laptop.


 ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

How can you run a newspaper & not be responsible for what is on the front page?


----------



## The Octagon (Jun 24, 2014)

Disgrace


----------



## Badgers (Jun 24, 2014)

From the BBC 



> There was dead silence in court on instruction of the judge as the verdicts were delivered by the jury forewoman. Some 70 people were present in the room at the time.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 24, 2014)

Wow, she admitted paying cops in front of parliament,  how did she get away with that?


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 24, 2014)

Will Coulson's guilt have implications for Cunt Dave?


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

I lobbed that laptop because.... I was on holiday at the time? Fuck me how much shit can we swallow?


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Will Coulson's guilt have implications for Cunt Dave?



I was just thinking that the jury has probably delivered the one verdict that matters most...


----------



## gosub (Jun 24, 2014)

Not that I'm vindictive, but if she wasn't guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, then the manner of her laptop's disposal was at least illegal dumping of trade waste


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 24, 2014)

laptop said:


> I was just thinking that the jury has probably delivered the one verdict that matters most...


Apparently our vile bastard PM is preparing a statement


----------



## Wilf (Jun 24, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Will Coulson's guilt have implications for Cunt Dave?


 We can expect some piss weak attacks from Labour spin doctors, but I suspect that will be it.  Would have had more purchase if he'd been found guilty when the Millie Dowler hacking story was first broken.


----------



## gabi (Jun 24, 2014)

Just saw this. How in gods name can she be not guilty? Her hubby was busily dumping the evidence. Can the public appeal?


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

laptop said:


> I was just thinking that the jury has probably delivered the one verdict that matters most...


Were you the laptop?


----------



## teqniq (Jun 24, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Will Coulson's guilt have implications for Cunt Dave?


Well it could always be possible that Cunt Dave had a hand in Ms. Brooks' exoneration, in the most indirect fashion don't you know? So I think the answer to that is 'no'.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 24, 2014)

Brooks used Kingsley Napsley solicitors, those guys know how to get things done 

*coughs*


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

A fucking disgrace. There is no justice.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Were you the laptop?



Still am.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jun 24, 2014)

gabi said:


> Just saw this. How in gods name can she be not guilty? Her hubby was busily dumping the evidence. Can the public appeal?


Nope.

Also:


----------



## Wilf (Jun 24, 2014)

They knew which people were in charge of the operation, they knew who paid for it, they knew who undertook the hacking - they'd even got the results of it on the front page of national fuckin' newspapers.  But then we have a justice system that allows the best lawyers that money can buy to construct a narrow technical defence that's not far off 'ah, but you haven't got a video of my client saying I want you to hack them and here's the money'.  The concept of reasonable doubt + political connections + vast amounts of money = not guilty'.  That depressing hinterland between scandalous and utterly predictable. Fuck 'em all.


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

We are more than being taken the piss out off.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 24, 2014)

The death of Gerry Conlon and what they went through, coming in the same week.... British justice, fuck.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 24, 2014)

Can we have a revoultion now please ?


----------



## killer b (Jun 24, 2014)

Well. That's ruined my afternoon.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 24, 2014)

What sentence is Coulson likely to receive? Slap on the wrist or some proper time?


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> What sentence is Coulson likely to receive? Slap on the wrist or some proper time?


A slap with a wet hanky.


----------



## angusmcfangus (Jun 24, 2014)

Not Guilty MY ARSE... The good old establishment eh, rule fuckin britannia.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 24, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> What sentence is Coulson likely to receive? Slap on the wrist or some proper time?


 Something on a par with forcing your wife to take your speeding points.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Something on a par with forcing your wife to take your speeding points.



And this autumn's new Guardian columnist is...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 24, 2014)

What a crock of fucking shit.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jun 24, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Coulson guilty on count one, conspiring with others to hack phones between 2000 & 2006.
> 
> Rebekah Brooks, Charlie Brooks, Kuttner, Hanna and Carter not guilty, with more verdicts pending.


I think she's guilty but recognise in the court of law she's been found innocent. I find it inconceivable an editor of a paper that got some of the biggest scoops some of which no other papers were getting won't sit down at some point and question how those scoops were coming about. We all know evidence was shredded and emails destroyed. It's my opinion she's been protected at all costs by murdoch and coulson has been left out to dry possibly as punishment again he tories for their backing of the leveson enquiry etc. All legally unproven of course and just an opinion


----------



## Wilf (Jun 24, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> And this autumn's new Guardian columnist is...


 I was thinking that - but as a former sun editor he wouldn't have the balls to end up getting paid to write prison reform articles, would he?  Fuck, anything's possible.    More likely to be 'My Romanian Cellmate's Moob Job on the NHS Hell'.


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

It makes me sad to be of the same human race.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 24, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> I think she's guilty but recognise in the court of law she's been found innocent. I find it inconceivable an editor of a paper that got some of the biggest scoops some of which no other papers were getting won't sit down at some point and question how those scoops were coming about. We all know evidence was shredded and emails destroyed. It's my opinion she's been protected at all costs by murdoch and coulson has been left out to dry possibly as punishment again he tories for their backing of the leveson enquiry etc. All legally unproven of course and just an opinion



Rupert will be pleased.



> Brooks's acquittal on the four charges will provide some relief for Rupert Murdoch, who once described the woman who rose to be chief executive of his London based News International operation his "top priority" when the phone hacking crisis first broke in the summer of 2011.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 24, 2014)

I'm torn over this. I wanted them to go down, but I've been tried by jury and acquitted myself, and I placed great store in the fact that my jury had, despite prosecution shenanigans, seen through the bullshit and done the right thing.


----------



## Betsy (Jun 24, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Apparently our vile bastard PM is preparing a statement


Too much to hope it's his resignation,I suppose


----------



## T & P (Jun 24, 2014)

Half of the sentence makes me want to cry.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 24, 2014)

Fuck, it would be cheaper and more honest to go back to the CPS giving it the 'not in the public interest' to prosecute line.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jun 24, 2014)




----------



## youngian (Jun 24, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/24/andy-coulson-rebekah-brooks-phone-hacking-trial


> Coulson stood emotionless as he absorbed the news. Looking faint and close to tears


What's his problem, prisons are all holiday camps as Coulson would be first to tell us.


----------



## Badgers (Jun 24, 2014)

Cost to the taxpayer?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 24, 2014)

youngian said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/24/andy-coulson-rebekah-brooks-phone-hacking-trial
> 
> What's his problem, prisons are all holiday camps as Coulson would be first to tell us.



Especially if you're only staying there for a couple of weeks.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 24, 2014)

youngian said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/24/andy-coulson-rebekah-brooks-phone-hacking-trial
> 
> What's his problem, prisons are all holiday camps as Coulson would be first to tell us.


 aye, all colour telly, pool tables and pizza deliveries...


----------



## youngian (Jun 24, 2014)

Rupert Murdoch announces meeting point for the Free Andy Coulson campaign


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 24, 2014)

Badgers said:


> Cost to the taxpayer?


"10s of millions of pounds" for the defence legal team, which I suppose is paid for by the state now.

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/world/uk-phon...rebekah-brooks-walks-free-20140624-zskm6.html


----------



## Betsy (Jun 24, 2014)

Damarr said:


>



 (That is in place of a sick smiley)


----------



## gabi (Jun 24, 2014)

Can someone explain what the husband was doing dumping a laptop in the rubbish? Just before the cops came knocking? And the emails?


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> "10s of millions of pounds" for the defence legal team, which I suppose is paid for by the state now.


The rules were changed not so long ago (as a cost-cutting measure) so that a defendant who pays for their defence can only recover 'reasonable costs' from the public purse (basically what they would have gotten if they had used legal aid). Anyone who goes all out on QCs and a large team of solicitors has to eat most of the expense.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

gabi said:


> Can someone explain what the husband was doing dumping a laptop in the rubbish? Just before the cops came knocking?



Did the jury believe that it was his porn stash?




gabi said:


> And the emails?



Mystery.


----------



## pesh (Jun 24, 2014)

They must have used the Chewbacca Defence.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 24, 2014)

Damarr said:


>




Mensch has never been a full member of the lizard people, has she?  This is such a desperate plea to be part of their little club, it's like Peggy from Hi-de-Hi needily begging to be a yellow coat. Christ.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jun 24, 2014)

gabi said:


> Can someone explain what the husband was doing dumping a laptop in the rubbish? Just before the cops came knocking? And the emails?


"There's a perfectly innocent explanation".


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

John Whittingdale gets as close as legally possible to saying "vertict wtf?":



> the Tory MP and chair of the Commons culture, media and sport select committee, has just appeared on Sky News talking about the*Andy Coulson* guilty verdict:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Wilf (Jun 24, 2014)

laptop said:


> John Whittingdale gets as close as legally possible to saying "vertict wtf?":


That Tom Watson will be working on his tweets at the moment, no doubt.

Edit: not yet, must be on his dinner.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 24, 2014)

News International is a criminal organisation that spied on a murdered child, and is endorsed by 4 parties leaders. That's the message. Brooks as innocent demonstrates she was so useless that she had no basic journo instinct for the source of highly private info. Useless people getting to the top in criminal organisations that lead politicians round by the nose.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> That Tom Watson will be working on his tweets at the moment, no doubt.
> 
> Edit: not yet, must be on his dinner.



He's having tea with Drenge.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 24, 2014)

Will we get any explanation of the juries' reasoning?  What was the compelling defence case?


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Will we get any explanation of the juries' reasoning?  What was the compelling defence case?



Nope.

It's an offence to discuss what went on in the jury room.

Which makes research into how juries operate a bit difficult.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 24, 2014)

laptop said:


> He's having tea with Drenge.


 I had to google.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

Wilf said:


> I had to google.



So did I


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2014)

load of bollocks.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 24, 2014)

Getting talked about a bit at work by not usually political types, reaction is one of incredulity.  Might turn out to be more damaging this way than had the fuckers been jailed!


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 24, 2014)

Damarr said:


>






Uber troll


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2014)

column in the SoS, writes for Bright Blue, vast family fortune, lives in america with Metallicas manager (really). twitter +chang.


----------



## mwgdrwg (Jun 24, 2014)

Sickeningly, nobody in the office gives a fuck. They are more interested in signing up for Sky's new sports channel.


----------



## youngian (Jun 24, 2014)

Do you get to be a Tory MP by talking to people like they're dopey pricks. Or just being a dopey prick?



> Oliver Colvile, Conservative MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, said he was “saddened” by the verdict against Coulson.
> 
> “I am rather surprised, because he always told the Prime Minister and everybody else that he new nothing about it,” Mr Colvile said.
> 
> http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Ply...er&utm_source=twitterfeed#j5RalqhbbeeFBfkt.99


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 24, 2014)

gabi said:


> Can someone explain what the husband was doing dumping a laptop in the rubbish? Just before the cops came knocking? And the emails?



"It's not what it looks like."


----------



## Supine (Jun 24, 2014)

Is Mensch going out of her way to be uber annoying? At least it's some canon fodder for the next election.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2014)

nah she's always like this


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 24, 2014)

finest justice money can buy.  a great day for capitalism.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2014)

I bet coulsons fucking furious at being the one under the bus, so small mercies


----------



## RedDragon (Jun 24, 2014)

Nicole Kidman is probably practicing here Brooks walk as I type...


----------



## gosub (Jun 24, 2014)

Jonathan Laidlaw QC can double his daily fee on he back of this


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Uber troll



Is there anyway to mute her from life?

I bet she tells Metallica that you can't do heavy metal in dobly.


----------



## Betsy (Jun 24, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Is there anyway to mute her from life?
> 
> I bet she tells Metallica that you can't do heavy metal in dobly.


Ridiculous woman. (Who else thinks he's innocent - does she say?)


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 24, 2014)

It's not just the obvious stupid crass trolling. IT's the hyperbole: "Coulson was the finest communications director of the modern age". FFS!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I bet coulsons fucking furious at being the one under the bus, so small mercies


good. let's hope he throws his toys out the pram and writes a tell all book.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> It's not just the obvious stupid crass trolling. IT's the hyperbole: "Coulson was the finest communications director of the modern age". FFS!


everyone knows it was someone else


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> good. let's hope he throws his toys out the pram and writes a tell all book.




given how far up his involvement goes there'd likely be a tragic suicide before then


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> Is there anyway to mute her from life?
> 
> I bet she tells Metallica that you can't do heavy metal in dobly.


Is it her husband who shoots Bears?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 24, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Is it her husband who shoots Bears?


No her husband is the band's manager. The singer/guitarist shoots bears.

She's like Janine from Spinal Tap, except less new age cosmic bullshit, more tory bullshit.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 24, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> It's not just the obvious stupid crass trolling. IT's the hyperbole: "Coulson was the finest communications director of the modern age". FFS!



Being wrong about everything gets a reaction and pays well (cf. Delingpole, Tobes etc.)


----------



## angusmcfangus (Jun 24, 2014)

Does this mean he might get a wee glimpse of barlinnie in the near future?


----------



## Dan U (Jun 24, 2014)

The way Mensch is fawning I can only conclude her latest Web venture has failed (number 3?) and she wants another job. 

Regardless of your views on this case, they are shameless suckuppery of the highest order. 

Fuck the lot of them


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 24, 2014)

Clarkson was also sounding ecstatic.

We'll need to order a particularly durable gallows for Chipping Norton, it'll get a lot of wear and tear.


----------



## scalyboy (Jun 24, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I bet coulsons fucking furious at being the one under the bus, so small mercies


 Will he spill the beans, tell all he knows as revenge?


----------



## Dan U (Jun 24, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Clarkson was also sounding ecstatic.
> 
> We'll need to order a particularly durable gallows for Chipping Norton, it'll get a lot of wear and tear.



According to Alex Thomson on Twitter, Clarkson and other of her mates are gathering at her London house. Assume Cameron won't go... 

And I am guessing Coulson has been paid off more than any book deal.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 24, 2014)

Dan U said:


> According to Alex Thomson on Twitter, Clarkson and other of her mates are gathering at her London house. Assume Cameron won't go...
> 
> And I am guessing Coulson has been paid off more than any book deal.


 He'll never go short of phone cards in prison.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2014)

it'll be some shit like five months max at ford open.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


>




She's always been an exemplary judge of character


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2014)

ah yes, the man who likes under age girls and overestimates his nob size by 80%


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 24, 2014)

I'm pretty sure menshn was the world's greatest global international communication network in the history of the world, bar none.


----------



## gosub (Jun 24, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> ah yes, the man who likes under age girls and overestimates his nob size by 80%


as opposed to Clifford who apparently underestimated


----------



## 1%er (Jun 24, 2014)

Cameron's public apology while the jury are still deliberating on other charges will go down well with the judge


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> Cameron's public apology while the jury are still deliberating on other charges will go down well with the judge



tbf, it's an apology for employing coulson who has been found as sin.

And if he'd waited for the thing to be finished completely the 'silence speaks volumes' stuff would have crucified him. Not much choice for him to do anything other than a swift apology. Damage limitation.


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> Cameron's public apology while the jury are still deliberating on other charges will go down well with the judge


And by saying he was giving someone a second chance implies he new that he was .....


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jun 24, 2014)

Lovely to have Mensch's considered opinions farting at us so swiftly after the verdict. Barely a step away from Katie Hopkins. What a tosser.


----------



## 1%er (Jun 24, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> tbf, it's an apology for employing coulson who has been found as sin.
> 
> And if he'd waited for the thing to be finished completely the 'silence speaks volumes' stuff would have crucified him. Not much choice for him to do anything other than a swift apology. Damage limitation.


The case isn't over 

edit: 
15:05:
The judge Mr Justice Saunders has urged restraint to anyone planning to comment on the case until all verdicts have been returned.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jun 24, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> She's always been an exemplary judge of character



Really needs a spoiler, I want to break my screen looking at this pic 

What the actual fuck do they offer the world? Did he go down in the end?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> The case isn't over




Coulsons been judged guilt and Brooks cleared of all charges. I know theres still verdicts for others yet to come but on the two people most connected to cameron and the tory party machine, the verdicts are in


----------



## 1%er (Jun 24, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Coulsons been judged guilt and Brooks cleared of all charges. I know theres still verdicts for others yet to come but on the two people most connected to cameron and the tory party machine, the verdicts are in


There are still verdicts on Coulson pending, ctc misconduct in public office being one of them.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 24, 2014)

Dan U said:


> The way Mensch is fawning I can only conclude her latest Web venture has failed (number 3?) and she wants another job.
> 
> Regardless of your views on this case, they are shameless suckuppery of the highest order.
> 
> Fuck the lot of them


doesn't she write "chick lit"? Or did she give that up when she married her meal ticket?


----------



## killer b (Jun 24, 2014)

nice.

(trying real hard here. but ffs)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 24, 2014)

Has anyone seen a convincing explanation of the rationale for finding Brooks and her husband (we can talk about them right, 'cos the verdicts are done) not guilty in the face of what appeared to be rather a lot of very compelling evidence to the contrary?

I don't mean explanation in terms of News International blackmailing jurors or whatever, but is there a legal rationale anywhere for ignoring the dumped laptops and other dodgy looking behaviour after the scandal broke or all the dirt that the Guardian dug up on her in its original investigation?


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

1%er said:


> There are still verdicts on Coulson pending, ctc misconduct in public office being one of them.



Not found the full text of Cameron's statement yet, but:




			
				BBC said:
			
		

> In a statement to the media after Tuesday's verdicts, Mr Cameron said he took "full responsibility for employing Andy Coulson".
> 
> "I did so on the basis of undertakings I was given by him about phone hacking and those turn out not be the case."



What he's trying to do is to apologise for having hired the man who'd just been convicted of a certain charge.

I think his lawyers would argue that this is unlikely to have undue influence on the jury.

Yes, the fact that he's convicted of this charge might influence them on the remaining charges. But they know it's happened, because they just did it


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 24, 2014)

So the person running the country can't even judge a character ? No wonder we are fucked


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Has anyone seen a convincing explanation of the rationale for finding Brooks and her husband (we can talk about them right, 'cos the verdicts are done) not guilty in the face of what appeared to be rather a lot of very compelling evidence to the contrary?
> 
> I don't mean explanation in terms of News International blackmailing jurors or whatever, but is there a legal rationale anywhere for ignoring the dumped laptops and other dodgy looking behaviour after the scandal broke or all the dirt that the Guardian dug up on her in it's original investigation?



As noted above, we haven't and we won't - unless one or more jury members fancy being prosecuted under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.8


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 24, 2014)

laptop said:


> As noted above, we haven't and we won't - unless one or more jury members fancy being prosecuted under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, s.8



Sure, I understand that, but I'm seeking an informed speculative account of how they _might_ have arrived that conclusion.

Did the judge provide any relevant guidance that I might have missed for example? Something that might have led the jurors to disregard various evidence in her case?


----------



## 1%er (Jun 24, 2014)

laptop said:


> Not found the full text of Cameron's statement yet, but:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I find myself in agreement with the judge who isn't very pleased according to news reports. Cameron has said time and again that he will not comment while the trial is on but it seems sometimes his politics is above the law. They are all cunts but if I was in  coulsons position I'd be pissed.

I understand why he did it now and didn't wait, there will be no legal consequence so just look at the politics.


----------



## marty21 (Jun 24, 2014)

Coulson seems to be the fall guy here, I haven't followed the trial closely, but I get the impression he didn't drop the others in it by giving evidence against them 

The others are innocent of course


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 24, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Has anyone seen a convincing explanation of the rationale for finding Brooks and her husband (we can talk about them right, 'cos the verdicts are done) not guilty in the face of what appeared to be rather a lot of very compelling evidence to the contrary?
> 
> I don't mean explanation in terms of News International blackmailing jurors or whatever, but is there a legal rationale anywhere for ignoring the dumped laptops and other dodgy looking behaviour after the scandal broke or all the dirt that the Guardian dug up on her in its original investigation?



My guess is that reporting of the case, particularly in other papers that might have an axe to grind, will have undoubtedly focused on the more sensational aspects pointing to their guilt, anything more mundane explaining their actions might have been overlooked in the reporting, so the appearance of it being a dead cert to casual onlookers may have been wrong. Face it, we've all wanted them to get banged up for this, but wanting something to be true so hard doesn't actually make this happen.

Having said that, it's hard to believe their innocence on the selected reporting we have seen, materials were concealed, public officials were bribed.  I think there was a defence that the laptop was dumped for instance because it contained the draft of a novel Brooks was writing, and porn, which he was embarrassed about, so maybe that counted for something - that it was about intent (conspiracy), not the actual events, and that they didn't actually have 'something to hide'.

If the case hadn't been pursued by the CPS then it'd be easy to scream about state collusion and an untouchable elite - with the judgement of a jury it's a harder claim to make.  

I'm sure media people following things more closely will provide their two cents.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 24, 2014)

I would imagine #10 is covered by parliamentary privilege?


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

marty21 said:


> Coulson seems to be the fall guy here, I haven't followed the trial closely, but I get the impression he didn't drop the others in it by giving evidence against them
> 
> The others are innocent of course


Yes I publish a daily newspaper & not know were the dirty sordid shit comes from. I am good at my job though. 

It would be funny if it was not true.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 24, 2014)

I would imagine #10 is covered by parliamentary privilege?


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Jun 24, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I would imagine #10 is covered by parliamentary privilege?



Only if it's said in the actual Parliament.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I would imagine #10 is covered by parliamentary privilege?



Only for statements made in Parliament.

(There's some debate over whether this means:

In one of the Chambers; 
and also in Select Committee;
and also in Westminster Hall debates.
For safety, draw the line at (2).

)


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 24, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Has anyone seen a convincing explanation of the rationale for finding Brooks and her husband (we can talk about them right, 'cos the verdicts are done) not guilty in the face of what appeared to be rather a lot of very compelling evidence to the contrary?
> 
> I don't mean explanation in terms of News International blackmailing jurors or whatever, but is there a legal rationale anywhere for ignoring the dumped laptops and other dodgy looking behaviour after the scandal broke or all the dirt that the Guardian dug up on her in its original investigation?



I wasn't convinced there was a particularly strong case against Brooks. I didn't follow the trial in depth, but close enough to note there was no cast iron smoking gun. 

The laptop dumping was all explained as covering her husbands porn habits, wasn't it? In the absence of witnesses confirming a guilty motive behind this activity, a jury might have felt that Brooks et als explanation, whatever that was in the end, was sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution version of events.  In fact clearly they did see it this way.


----------



## 1%er (Jun 24, 2014)

I heard Andrew Neil talking about the hacking stuff on an ABC interview someone sent me.

I was listening rather than watching but I'm sure he said words to the effect "I blame Murdoch for creating a culture with-in the news room of *get the story at all costs*"

e2a link above, iirc it is towards the end


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 24, 2014)

So you're allowed to shred evidence pertinent to an ongoing criminal investigation then? That's worth remembering...


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 24, 2014)

ruffneck23 said:


> So the person running the country can't even judge a character ? No wonder we are fucked


His Communications Director has just been found guilty of hacking mobile phones.
His Immigration Minister hired illegal immigrants.
His special advisor who came up with the internet filter was arrested on child porn charges.
His Health Minister believes in homeopathy.
His Environment Minister doesn't believe in climate change.
His Lord Chancellor has never studied law.

Dave is an excellent judge of character alright.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 24, 2014)

Are we seeing a pattern here?

Popular veteran TV star. Not guilty.

Nasty, slimy PR man. Guilty.

Hasbeen 70s DJ, comes over as pathetic twat. Fuck knows, could be either.

Unlikeable little weasel. Guilty.

Flame haired stunna(sort of). Not guilty.

Former popular TV presenter now very old. How will that play out, we wonder?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> His Health Minister believes in homeopathy.


 So what?  

All the other shit is shit yes. This not so much


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 24, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> So what?
> 
> All the other shit is shit yes. This not so much


I've seen the threads on this so know you won't change your mind, but most people would agree it's not an ideal quality to have in a Health Minister.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I've seen the threads on this so know you won't change your mind, but most people would agree it's not an ideal quality to have in a Health Minister.



An awareness of how integrative medicine can benefit patients is a giant step forward in my opinion.

I don't care what the proverbial _'most people think'_ either.

Sorry for thread derail.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 24, 2014)

Homeothapy?


----------



## Gingerman (Jun 24, 2014)

Coulson the fall guy for Brooks....fucking mug


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 24, 2014)

Buckaroo said:


> Homeothapy?


Are you asking what it is or where Hunt has supported it?


----------



## MrSki (Jun 24, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> Coulson the fall guy for Brooks....fucking mug


Hope he stuck a large carrot where the sun doesn't.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> His Communications Director has just been found guilty of hacking mobile phones.
> His Immigration Minister hired illegal immigrants.
> His special advisor who came up with the internet filter was arrested on child porn charges.
> His Health Minister believes in homeopathy.
> ...



Christ, you didn't even have to mention IBS


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I've seen the threads on this so know you won't change your mind, but most people would agree it's not an ideal quality to have in a Health Minister.


So the best way to defeat jeremy Hunt is to expose him to a small quanityt of Jeremy Hunt.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 24, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> So the best way to defeat jeremy Hunt is to expose him to a small quanityt of Jeremy Hunt.


The smaller the quantity, the more potent


----------



## elbows (Jun 24, 2014)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I wasn't convinced there was a particularly strong case against Brooks. I didn't follow the trial in depth, but close enough to note there was no cast iron smoking gun.
> 
> The laptop dumping was all explained as covering her husbands porn habits, wasn't it? In the absence of witnesses confirming a guilty motive behind this activity, a jury might have felt that Brooks et als explanation, whatever that was in the end, was sufficient to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution version of events.  In fact clearly they did see it this way.



I agree, I didn't think this part of the case was very strong, or at least nowhere near as strong as I'd have been happy with. The porn defence was clever on several levels, and to do much better I think the prosecution would have needed to somehow actually show what specific, damning evidence was destroyed, hidden etc by these acts.


----------



## Buckaroo (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> Are you asking what it is or where Hunt has supported it?



Not asking anything really, homeopathy is nothing isn't it and anyone who thinks it is legit in any way are deluded. Not that all integrative medicine stuff is bullshit but that is.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> The smaller the quantity, the more potent


to strengthen him we simply dunk him in the ocean?


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 24, 2014)

So now Murdoch is to be questioned about the crime in his organization.

If the editor of the paper didn't know about it, what makes them think the owner would?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> So now Murdoch is to be questioned about the crime in his organization.
> 
> If the editor of the paper didn't know about it, what makes them think the owner would?



Presumably so that they can exonerate him in return for suitable considerations.


----------



## Gingerman (Jun 24, 2014)

Brooks also had the best legal team that Uncle Rupe's deep packets could afford,Coulson had to pay his own way,go figure.....


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez, you should pass that list about on FB but add that his chancellor has background or qualifications in business or economics.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 24, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Presumably so that they can exonerate him in return for suitable considerations.


Top cynicism


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 24, 2014)

"to be questioned" is an interesting way of saying grease some palms and walk away with clean hands.


----------



## Fez909 (Jun 24, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Fez, you should pass that list about on FB but add that his chancellor has background or qualifications in business or economics.


I don't use Facebook but feel free to pass it off as you own. I did


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jun 24, 2014)

im going to


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 24, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> to strengthen him we simply dunk him in the ocean?



Dilute him in the Pacific.


----------



## newharper (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I don't use Facebook but feel free to pass it off as you own. I did



I just quoted it on facebook, though with accreditation. 

not by name, just site.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 24, 2014)

Tonight, she's with her friends. David, Jeremy, Matthew, Emma. Celebrating the verdict (according to the press.)

Laughing at the plebs who had the audacity to imagine that Rupert's chosen one was actually subject to the law.

Laughing at the quaint notion that justice should be done irrespective of who your powerful friends are ...

Laughing at all the funny plebs thinking that they mean something. That their disgust at this blatant endemic corruption matters in any way to the 1% ers.

Face it. The rule of law means nothing to these people. If they're going to be brought to justice, some other means of enforcement of community standards is needed.

Clearly, the law has been completely subverted and no longer serves the public interest or anything resembling it. The unanswerable proof of this is Brooks walking free ...


----------



## teqniq (Jun 24, 2014)

I fear you may be right.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 24, 2014)

The next Private Eye is gonna be worth a read that's for sure.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 24, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> Wow, she admitted paying cops in front of parliament,  how did she get away with that?



'Officers, that woman paid bribes to police officers, arrest her!'

Can't imagine how she got away with it...


----------



## DexterTCN (Jun 24, 2014)

I'm disappointed.  Coulson will do his time and say nothing.  I wonder if they'll make a faux example of him (don't get caught!) and give him a hefty sentence...citing public decency and trustworthiness.

The Brooks clan getting off pretty much stops any possibility of any higher heads rolling and stems the flood.   

However the whole thing was still very much a positive for me.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 24, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Officers, that woman paid bribes to police officers, arrest her!'
> 
> Can't imagine how she got away with it...



It's OK if Rupert's pretend daughter (for the purposes of sick "Daddy" scenes) does it.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The next Private Eye is gonna be worth a read that's for sure.



Come to think of it, the Eye went very quiet during the final arguments and summing-up.

That could be because of the fear that, being fortnightly, they mightn't be covered by "contemporaneous" reporting - say if the jury went out while the ink was drying.

Or it could be because there were interesting arguments made in the absence of the jury, which can now be reported. 

:fingers-crossed{


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 24, 2014)

News just in, Rebekah brooks has been appointed chair of the new press regulatory comission. 

Just kidding folks. That won't be until next week at the earliest. Otherwise it might look like they were taking the piss.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> So now Murdoch is to be questioned about the crime in his organization.
> 
> If the editor of the paper didn't know about it, what makes them think the owner would?



Hmm...



> The verdict on Coulson also means that Murdoch's UK company is now threatened with a possible corporate charge, while the media owner also faces the prospect of a dozen more criminal trials involving his journalists as well as hundreds more legal actions in the high court from the alleged victims of phone hacking by the _News of the World_.



After all they've sunk into this trial, they police & CPS may feel like making something stick - my bet's on a charge against the company.


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

More...



> If the former UK company were convicted of conspiring to intercept communications, the members of its board of directors – including Rupert and James Murdoch – could then be prosecuted personally under section 79 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa). This makes directors liable for prosecution if their company breaches Ripa as a result of their consent, connivance or neglect.



Possibly wishful thinking on the Grauniad's part - note the "If".



> Murdoch already faces a volley of threats in the English criminal and civil courts. Eleven more trials are due to take place at the Old Bailey involving a total of 20 current or former journalists from the Sun and the News of the World, who are accused variously of making illegal payments to public officials, conspiring to intercept voicemail and accessing data on stolen mobile phones. The journalists have denied the charges.



This thread will run and run 



> In Scotland, Coulson and two other News of the World journalists face trials variously on charges of perjury, phone hacking and breach of data protection laws. They too, have denied the charges.



Ah. The Scottish courts... (This is Tommy Sheridan fallout, isn't it?  )

Take care on that last one:



> The 45-year-old made a private appearance at Glasgow Sheriff Court on June 13, where he made no plea or declaration and was granted bail by Sheriff John McCormack.
> 
> Mr Coulson was represented by the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Richard Keen QC.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 24, 2014)

(over the top image deleted)


----------



## laptop (Jun 24, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> This is what justice for those who thought they were untouchable, looks like ...



I am disappointed. I thought he was _literally_ hung from a lamp-post.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I don't use Facebook but feel free to pass it off as you own. I did


I've sent it to a few


----------



## existentialist (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> His Communications Director has just been found guilty of hacking mobile phones.
> His Immigration Minister hired illegal immigrants.
> His special advisor who came up with the internet filter was arrested on child porn charges.
> His Health Minister believes in homeopathy.
> ...


I think you forgot to say anything about his financially completely inexperienced Chancellor, too...


----------



## existentialist (Jun 24, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> The smaller the quantity, the more potent


Hunt comes across to me very much as a "small quantities" kind of dude. And I don't mean that to be in any way remotely complimentary.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 24, 2014)

Verdict stinks of course but TBH I wasn't expecting anything else. In fact I'm only surprised that Coulson has been found guilty.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 24, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> This is what justice for those who thought they were untouchable, looks like ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know, less than 4 years ago or so, I would have recoiled in horror and disapproval of an image like this being used in connection with our own political classes. I find it quite troubling that I find the idea more than tolerable, now...


----------



## J Ed (Jun 24, 2014)

existentialist said:


> You know, less than 4 years ago or so, I would have recoiled in horror and disapproval of an image like this being used in connection with our own political classes. I find it quite troubling that I find the idea more than tolerable, now...



A rational and human reaction to the situation we find ourselves in, I agree with you completely.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 24, 2014)

One of many, many examples of just what sort of (and I use this word in a non-gender specific sense here) a horrible cunt Rebekah Brooks is and the sort of disgusting culture she presided over:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/16/us-newscorp-notw-brooks-idUSTRE76F0O420110716



> Charles Begley, an ex-News of the World reporter, has spoken out about the bullying culture. He said he felt close to breaking-point when, three hours after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York's twin towers, he was ordered to appear at the paper's daily conference dressed in a Harry Potter outfit he had been given to help the tabloid capitalize on the craze for the books about the boy wizard.
> 
> "At that time, we were working on the assumption that up to 50,000 people had been killed," he said then, according to tapes published in 2002 by the Daily Telegraph of a conversation between him and assistant news editor Greg Miskiw. "I was required to parade myself around morning conference dressed as Harry Potter."


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 25, 2014)

Fez909 said:


> I don't use Facebook but feel free to pass it off as you own. I did



I added a line about Osborne, but missed out that a Trade Minister presided at a bank that money laundered for Al Qaeda. 

Anyway, it got a lot of shares, more important than mere "likes". I think wheeling it out again would be good.


----------



## gabi (Jun 25, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> An awareness of how integrative medicine can benefit patients is a giant step forward in my opinion.
> 
> I don't care what the proverbial _'most people think'_ either.
> 
> Sorry for thread derail.



I'm sure the people flogging their placebos to you don't care what 'most people think' either. Huge money to be made, without having to shell out for expensive research like the actual drug companies.

Bit fucked up though if the Minister of Health does believe in that nonsense.


----------



## gabi (Jun 25, 2014)

I'm not in the UK. Are people generally scratching their heads over this verdict?

What about the text messages about the 'pizza being delivered' and the laptop presumably full of evidence being 'unfortunately' found by a far too honest cleaner who handed it in to the coppers?

Did she get off on a technicality? I really don't understand. I bet she can't either.


----------



## Batboy (Jun 25, 2014)

Damarr said:


> The rules were changed not so long ago (as a cost-cutting measure) so that a defendant who pays for their defence can only recover 'reasonable costs' from the public purse (basically what they would have gotten if they had used legal aid). Anyone who goes all out on QCs and a large team of solicitors has to eat most of the expense.



As the old adage goes....

Solicitor to barrister 'I say old chap does my client have a case?'
Barrister replies 'Well my learned friend, does your client have the money?'


----------



## Batboy (Jun 25, 2014)

I'm no fan of Brooke's/Wade and my partner went to same school as her in Warrington and can't stand her and is gobsmacked/disappointed at verdict.

But, are we really saying a Jury of 12 has been hoodwinked or won over by a clever defence team?

Is there an element of willing for her to be guilty? Is there an obsession with conspiracy theories going on here? 

I'm not naive to the point of failing to understand the shitty things the rich and powerful can get up to and how they can contort stuff, but I do find it hard to believe a jury in such a high profile case can be had at or get it so wrong.

Unless of course the CPS/police fucked up.


----------



## gabi (Jun 25, 2014)

How do they explain the laptop. That was the smoking gun.


----------



## co-op (Jun 25, 2014)

All the defence have to do is to create enough doubt about the prosecution case. Even common or garden defence briefs are pretty good at that - it's their basic stock in trade, so super-expensive ones are very good at it, they know how to play a jury.

I'm still a bit amazed by this one though.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 25, 2014)

gabi said:


> How do they explain the laptop. That was the smoking gun.



There wasn't any evidence on it, so that's why the porn dumping excuse looked slightly feasible I suppose.


----------



## gabi (Jun 25, 2014)

Why would he go to such lengths? All those coded text messages about pizzas being delivered etc... doesnt make any sense.


----------



## scalyboy (Jun 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Officers, that woman paid bribes to police officers, arrest her!'
> 
> Can't imagine how she got away with it...


----------



## scalyboy (Jun 25, 2014)

Batboy said:


> I'm no fan of Brooke's/Wade and my partner went to same school as her in Warrington and can't stand her and is gobsmacked/disappointed at verdict.
> 
> But, are we really saying a Jury of 12 has been hoodwinked or won over by a clever defence team?
> 
> ...


Sometimes juries make stupid decisions. Sometime they are led by a judge's biased summing up (e.g. Jeremy Thorpe trial). Sometimes they have been bunged. Do we know if this was a majority or unanimous decision?  And what was the jist of the judge's summing up? Was it a "I direct you to find her..." sort of thing?


----------



## scalyboy (Jun 25, 2014)

What gets me about this whole mess is that decades ago it would be a resignation matter for Dave and Gideon. Now that there's no shame any more in politics, an apology is all that's necessary, they then carry on as normal. 

And the Great British Public won't be bothered, the apathy is overwhelming, f---k me... if we let them dismember the NHS, then what hope is there of any outcry over this? 

Over the past few years I've been genuinely puzzled as to why voters would have any respect for, still less vote for, millionaire toffs who know f--k all about real life. I am afraid to say I think it is down to a new deference, and respect for the wealthy *just because they are wealthy* or because they talk posh (see Boris). 

Something to do with post-Fatch aspirational / celebrity culture? AAARRgghh it's an 8am rant...


----------



## hipipol (Jun 25, 2014)

Stunned
Well she has argued that as the head of a big organisation with corruption at its very core, she knew fuck all about what was happening, ie she was utterly incompetent
Bet some fuck hires her in a couple of weeks
Some buggers lying large


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jun 25, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Hunt comes across to me very much as a "small quantities" kind of dude. And I don't mean that to be in any way remotely complimentary.


well he does think that diluting the health service will make it stronger.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jun 25, 2014)

Was foolish enough to ask for a Times this morning; six pages of Saint Rebecca's exoneration, a DPS on what the fragrant Mrs Brooks can and should do next, and a bitter page on all celebrities being lying cunts who loved being hacked.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jun 25, 2014)

QUOTE="scalyboy, post: 13228963, member: 1395"]Sometimes juries make stupid decisions. Sometime they are led by a judge's biased summing up (e.g. Jeremy Thorpe trial). Sometimes they have been bunged. Do we know if this was a majority or unanimous decision?  And what was the jist of the judge's summing up? Was it a "I direct you to find her..." sort of thing?[/QUOTE]

If the jury was "banged", big "if"  but I'll say this, there was a lot more time than normal to get it done. On the whole I'd buy co ops version (523) though.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 25, 2014)

Presumably Mulcaire, Goodman and the other vassals get sentenced when deliberations are concluded on Coulson?  All feels a bit medieval, Coulson as the former first minister (along with a few whipping boys) being put to the stake for the monarch's sins.  David Moyes to Tyburn, the Glazer bloodline remains.


----------



## strung out (Jun 25, 2014)

It's not actually that surprising, is it? This is a pretty good piece about why she was found not guilty... http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014...ial-why-was-rebekah-brooks-found-not-guilty-0



> When you cover court cases you often find that not guilty verdicts are often given not because the jury think the defendant did not probably commit the crime; instead it is often the case that the jury have decided that the evidence presented to them does not meet the high standard required for a conviction. Recently the English courts dropped the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" on the grounds that it was too confusing and have replaced it with "if you are sure". Often juries will think someone is guilty on the balance of probabilities but decide they cannot be 100 per cent sure that the defence explanation of events is impossible.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 25, 2014)

strung out said:


> It's not actually that surprising, is it? This is a pretty good piece about why she was found not guilty... http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014...ial-why-was-rebekah-brooks-found-not-guilty-0


I think it's safe to say there would have been something close to a full house of guilties if this had been set at a civil court standard of proof.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Jun 25, 2014)

I don't know why Dave has to apologise for bringing someone into government who ended up a convicted criminal; we voted enough of them in there already.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jun 25, 2014)

Surely one of the accused would have kept "documents" in a safe place to ensure themselves some kind of protection if convicted?

I await the first "accident", probably connected to horses in some way. The idiot first probably.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 25, 2014)

Probably better delete this post actually.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 25, 2014)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Was foolish enough to ask for a Times this morning; six pages of Saint Rebecca's exoneration, a DPS on what the fragrant Mrs Brooks can and should do next, and a bitter page on all celebrities being lying cunts who loved being hacked.



Tactfully done 

I'm surprised they didn't lead with the headline 'Fuck You Millie Dowler!'


----------



## laptop (Jun 25, 2014)

co-op said:


> All the defence have to do is to create enough doubt about the prosecution case. Even common or garden defence briefs are pretty good at that - it's their basic stock in trade, so super-expensive ones are very good at it, they know how to play a jury.



This. The instruction to convict only if "you are certain so that you are sure" gives lots of leeway to jurors who _want_ to acquit.

I am surprised that the verdicts so far were unanimous. I can speculate about a forceful jury chair... at least, I think I'm allowed to speculate.


----------



## quiquaquo (Jun 25, 2014)

laptop said:


> This. The instruction to convict "only if you are certain so that you are sure" gives lots of leeway to jurors who _want_ to acquit.
> 
> I am surprised that the verdicts so far were unanimous. I can speculate about a forceful jury chair... at least, I think I'm allowed to speculate.



Seconded.


----------



## agricola (Jun 25, 2014)

Jury discharged on the remaining stuff, apparently*.

* according to Kay Burley anyway


----------



## belboid (Jun 25, 2014)

laptop said:


> This. The instruction to convict only if "you are certain so that you are sure" gives lots of leeway to jurors who _want_ to acquit.
> 
> I am surprised that the verdicts so far were unanimous. I can speculate about a forceful jury chair... at least, I think I'm allowed to speculate.


I would have expected at least one split verdict, most likely around the destruction of evidence.  But there was little real hard evidence against Brooks, the most telling being that one phone call whilst on holiday, and, tbh, that one didnt even ring true to me.

This is quite a good piece - http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014...brooks-found-not-guilty-0#jYJ0kYMI6QxfY6IX.01


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2014)

redsquirrel said:


> Verdict stinks of course but TBH I wasn't expecting anything else. In fact I'm only surprised that Coulson has been found guilty.




The great investigative Guardian Journalist and writer Nick Davies(Dark Heart) on Newsnight last night gave a very robust defence of the trial and endorsement of its validity and praised the Judge, he also said Brooks has been aquitted in a fair trial and the verdict should stand. Davies is also one of the main Guardian journalists working on the hacking scandal.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jun 25, 2014)

That Drum article is the sort of thing I had in mind in my request above. Thanks.


----------



## marty21 (Jun 25, 2014)

surely Coulson has nothing to lose now and can drop Cameron in it - reveal all!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2014)

marty21 said:


> surely Coulson has nothing to lose now and can drop Cameron in it - reveal all!




he still has his health


----------



## cantsin (Jun 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> The great investigative Guardian Journalist and writer Nick Davies(Dark Heart) on Newsnight last night gave a very robust defence of the trial and endorsement of its validity and praised the Judge, he also said Brooks has been aquitted in a fair trial and the verdict should stand. Davies is also one of the main Guardian journalists working on the hacking scandal.


 
jesus, you're easily pleased eh....

Davies defended : the trial, the judges, the cops who did everything they could to not investigate until forced by circumstance (milly Dowler), and were being paid by NOTW ( he claims they were anti terrorist OB, didn't know what they were dealing with???), the rest of the press, you name it, it was the classic liberal default position : "flush out a few bad apples, the systems all right, just needs a bit of cleaning up."

Feeble.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 25, 2014)

Judge not please with Cameron spouting his mouth off before the remaining charges could be decided upon. Anyone know what they were?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 25, 2014)

Not sure how anyone in their right minds could stick up for the coppers on this one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 25, 2014)

Nick wrote a whole chapter on the 'dark arts' in Flat Earth News. I suppose he thinks the stables are clean now.


----------



## laptop (Jun 25, 2014)

cantsin said:


> Davies defended : the trial, the judges, the cops who did everything they could to not investigate until forced by circumstance (milly Dowler), and were being paid by NOTW ( he claims they were anti terrorist OB, didn't know what they were dealing with???), the rest of the press, you name it, it was the classic liberal default position : "flush out a few bad apples, the systems all right, just needs a bit of cleaning up."



Put yourself in Davies' position for a moment.

I bet Murdoch would _love_ to fund a libel suit against him (and if possible the _Guardian_). 

The major _point_ of a jury trial is to establish something that counts as a _fact_ (for legal purposes).

What may count as a fact for the purposes of historians, on the other hand...


----------



## laptop (Jun 25, 2014)

Meanwhile... *it's not over yet*.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...dman-jurors-discharged-failing-reach-verdicts



			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> Judge complains about David Cameron's comments after first verdicts, and discharges jury on ninth day of deliberations
> 
> Mr Justice Saunders formally discharged the jury at around 12.30pm on the ninth day of their deliberations in relation to the two charges, which were also faced by the News of the World's former royal editor Clive Goodman.
> 
> ...



It must be asked: is it in the Prime Minister's interest that no verdict be found on the remaining charge and was he too stupid to realise the conflict of interest?




			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> No 10 said the prime minister had spoken after the verdict had been given in open court and was only speaking about the hacking conspiracy verdict and not other charges against Coulson.



That's part of the defence I predicted they'd mount...


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 25, 2014)

Of course, all the stuff that's been held back due to an ongoing trial will pop up shortly.  Wonder if we'll see anything interesting, any new allegations?

The whole thing probably just looks like the westminster/media circus to a lot of people, not sure how damaging it'll be in the long run.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 25, 2014)

Miliband totally fucked it at PMQs today. Should've gone for the jugular, made a laughing stock of himself instead. 

And how on earth he didn't realise that Sun pic he did wasn't a bad move with this case about to conclude.... beggars belief.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 25, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> And how on earth he didn't realise that Sun pic he did wasn't a bad move with this case about to conclude.... beggars belief.



Because he's got shit for brains?


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 25, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Because he's got shit for brains?


He's a joke. He can't operate at the dispatch box, he's not sharp, clever or cruel enough. And how none of his advisers thought the Sun pic was stupid - given the "Cameron and NI are too close" thing that was likely to arise as an issue, well... facepalms all round.

Fuck 'em all. Fucking cunts. The whole thing is sick. Public apathy is due to relentless shit like this. It's become normalised.

It's a sad time.


----------



## laptop (Jun 25, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Miliband totally fucked it at PMQs today. Should've gone for the jugular, made a laughing stock of himself instead.



The judge has thrown him a lifeline (above). Cameron *does* appear to be in contempt of court and *does* appear actually to have improperly influenced a trial to his own benefit.

(At midnight last night a friend was envisaging the judge pouring another glass of Chateau Latour '89, the better to mull whether to have a go at Cameron. Cheers!)


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 25, 2014)

laptop said:


> The judge has thrown him a lifeline (above). Cameron *does* appear to be in contempt of court and *does* appear actually to have improperly influenced a trial to his own benefit.
> 
> (At midnight last night a friend was envisaging the judge pouring another glass of Chateau Latour '89, the better to mull whether to have a go at Cameron. Cheers!)


It'll soon all blow over and be forgotten


----------



## laptop (Jun 25, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> It'll soon all blow over and be forgotten



Can someone please forward my previous to Labour HQ to reduce the chances of them once more failing to keep it unblown? Sheesh.


----------



## kebabking (Jun 25, 2014)

laptop said:


> ...was he too stupid...



he's an idiot, i think he's actually too much of an idiot to mount a machivelian conspiracy - though the two charges that were involved when the Jury was discharged were small fry (politically), so if Cameron mounted a conspiracy against them its more evidence of his idiocy.

it is the all to obvious consequence of employing an advertising spiv as PM.

wonder how long Ken Clarke will remain in post...


----------



## redsquirrel (Jun 25, 2014)

treelover said:


> The great investigative Guardian Journalist and writer Nick Davies(Dark Heart) on Newsnight last night gave a very robust defence of the trial and endorsement of its validity and praised the Judge, he also said Brooks has been aquitted in a fair trial and the verdict should stand. Davies is also one of the main Guardian journalists working on the hacking scandal.


Cantsin nails this liberal guff.


----------



## 8115 (Jun 25, 2014)

Coulson guilty, nice. Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party on this one.


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2014)

cantsin said:


> jesus, you're easily pleased eh....
> 
> Davies defended : the trial, the judges, the cops who did everything they could to not investigate until forced by circumstance (milly Dowler), and were being paid by NOTW ( he claims they were anti terrorist OB, didn't know what they were dealing with???), the rest of the press, you name it, it was the classic liberal default position : "flush out a few bad apples, the systems all right, just needs a bit of cleaning up."
> 
> Feeble.




I'm not endorsing his comments, just posting them,

btw, the Peston authored Panorama just now on the Hacking Scandal had some new insights and is worth a watch, especially good on the Met's role in it all.


----------



## laptop (Jun 26, 2014)

Of course, the jury found that Brooks was telling the truth in the following:



> In addition, she and Kemp had been joined on the holiday by a British tourist, William Hennessy, who told the jury that she had spent a lot of time on the phone, explaining on one occasion that she had to make a call “about the missing Surrey girl”. Hennessy was sure of the timing: he had bought a watch in Dubai and kept the receipt, which was dated. Brooks said she had no memory of that. She had remained oblivious to the whole saga, she said, even when she returned to the office the following week, never reading the story which the paper had published quoting the voicemail verbatim, never knowing that managing editor Stuart Kuttner was still hectoring Surrey police to confirm the tale. Kuttner, also on trial, was himself found not guilty of conspiring to hack phones.
> 
> From http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/25/-sp-phone-hacking-trial-rebekah-brooks-rupert-murdoch


----------



## Batboy (Jun 26, 2014)

gabi said:


> How do they explain the laptop. That was the smoking gun.



Porn? Pictures of Beks in compromising positions with East Enders actor Kemp, or even ?Mr Coulson? Fuck knows... The Brooke's could be high end swingers!

Wouldn't want the media to get hold of it....


----------



## laptop (Jun 26, 2014)

Batboy said:


> The Brookses could be high end swingers!



A search for "pampas grass chipping norton" is disappointing. 

Perhaps they hide Bollinger corks in the camomile lawn instead?


----------



## Batboy (Jun 26, 2014)

laptop said:


> A search for "pampas grass chipping norton" is disappointing.
> 
> Perhaps they hide Bollinger corks in the camomile lawn instead?



I can think of better places to hide the corks....


----------



## laptop (Jun 26, 2014)

From another thread, by goldenecitrone:




			
				 goldenecitrone said:
			
		

> After all that fuss. I hope [Abu Qatada] and Rebekah Brooks can now resume their lives together in peace and quiet.



Or less quiet...


----------



## weltweit (Jun 26, 2014)

> The hacking trial has cost £1.745m so far, the Crown Prosecution Service said. The figures cover the period up to 31 May


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28014035

Seems to have cost quite a lot.


----------



## laptop (Jun 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28014035
> 
> Seems to have cost quite a lot.



From yesterday's _Times_:




			
				Rupert's organ said:
			
		

> The case could have cost News Corporation as much as £60 million...
> 
> Specific costs were not determined as News UK and the Ministry of Justice refused to disclose information.



More than 34 times the prosecution spend 

And that almost certainly is what they spent on _this case_, not the millions in deals with some of the hacked:



> the company says it has spent £267 million overall on legal costs relating to the scandal


----------



## weltweit (Jun 27, 2014)

Blimey ...


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 27, 2014)

Can they write that off against tax?  They will, won't they?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 27, 2014)

laptop said:


> From yesterday's _Times_:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



News Corporation made about $10 billion profit last year. So it's cost them 2.5% of their profits.


----------



## J Ed (Jun 27, 2014)

weltweit said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28014035
> 
> Seems to have cost quite a lot.





goldenecitrone said:


> News Corporation made about $10 billion profit last year. So it's cost them 2.5% of their profits.



Makes you wonder if in exceptional cases the Chinese example of just shooting them and sending the bullets and a bill for the bullets to the next of kin might have some application in our own country.


----------



## equationgirl (Jun 28, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Can they write that off against tax?  They will, won't they?


I'll check with the accountant at work but I'm reasonably sure that it will shown as expenditure in any annual accounts, and any remaining legal cases shown as a liability in the notes. Don't think they can claim any tax benefit for it.


----------



## stavros (Jun 29, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Can they write that off against tax?  They will, won't they?



I think News Corp is "based" is various far-flung jurisdictions, e.g. British Virgin Islands, Monaco, etc, and so tax may not be an issue to them anyway.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 30, 2014)

Andy Coulson and Clive Goodman face retrial
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28086528


> Ex-News of the World editor Andy Coulson and its former royal editor Clive Goodman are to face a retrial on a charge of buying royal telephone directories from police officers.
> 
> An Old Bailey jury failed to reach a verdict on the charges last week.
> 
> Coulson was found guilty last week of conspiracy to hack phones and faces a maximum of two years in prison.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 30, 2014)

I'm sure they can afford to buy off another jury, small change to NI


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 1, 2014)

...allegedly


----------



## 1%er (Jul 1, 2014)

A friend has sent me a link to Four Corners, (reporter Marian Wilkinson looks at the case made against Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson.)

In a review it says this: _There is little doubt he’ll take comfort that Rebekah Brooks, his former UK chief executive, has been found not guilty. But the guilty verdict against Andy Coulson, a former senior editor, and 11 new trials of Murdoch’s journalists pending at the Old Bailey carry real implications for News Corp on both sides of the Atlantic._

Is that correct that there are 11 more trials in the pipeline?


----------



## existentialist (Jul 1, 2014)

1%er said:


> A friend has sent me a link to Four Corners, (reporter Marian Wilkinson looks at the case made against Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson.)
> 
> In a review it says this: _There is little doubt he’ll take comfort that Rebekah Brooks, his former UK chief executive, has been found not guilty. But the guilty verdict against Andy Coulson, a former senior editor, and 11 new trials of Murdoch’s journalists pending at the Old Bailey carry real implications for News Corp on both sides of the Atlantic._
> 
> Is that correct that there are 11 more trials in the pipeline?


There's a whole bunch of Sun-related stuff due...


----------



## laptop (Jul 2, 2014)

1%er said:


> Is that correct that there are 11 more trials in the pipeline?



That was what I posted way up-thread. Seems to be correct. Plus, IIRC, two separate trials in Scotland (Coulson, for perjury...)


----------



## phildwyer (Jul 2, 2014)

cantsin said:


> milly Dowler



Worth remembering here that the Milly Dowler deleted-messages farrago was nothing more than an old-fashioned moral panic, which never really happened?

Also worth wondering why we feel so sympathetic towards the likes of Hugh Grant, who couldn't be bothered to change the code of their phone as per the explicit manufacturers' instructions, and thus basically allowed the press (on which lest we forget he depends for his rather impressive livelihood) to look through his open window?  And then has the gall to moan about it, like he has the right to moan about _anything?_

Also worth sparing a thought for the thousands of journos, subs, tea ladies etc who were unceremoniously dumped on the dole queue as a result of said multi-millionaire moaning?

Possibly even worth considering the many virtues of a free press, the difficulty of sustaining a free press in the face of celebrity, political and financial pressure, the ease with which a free press can be muzzled, and the likely consequences of losing a free press?

Isn't it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2014)

.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Also worth sparing a thought for the thousands of journos, subs, tea ladies etc who were unceremoniously dumped on the dole queue as a result of said multi-millionaire moaning?


No, they were sacrificed by Murdoch, wanting to relaunch with a less toxic brand.  It was a _marketing_ decision that put people on the dole, made by a billionaire.  And if you want to take that as me having any sympathies with Hugh Grant, don't.


----------



## laptop (Jul 2, 2014)

Andy Hayman and John Yates of the Yard either far too stupid to receive a salary, or at least a teensy bit corrupt: 

Not going to summarise any more than that without a lawyer at my elbow.

*Phone hacking: Met had the evidence. How will it explain five years of failure?*
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...tion-caryatid-trial-police-news-international


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 2, 2014)

laptop said:


> Andy Hayman and John Yates of the Yard either far too stupid to receive a salary, or at least a teensy bit corrupt



Given things such as all the CIB/Op Russia stuff, a reasonable person might point out that it need not be a case of either/or.


----------



## existentialist (Jul 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Possibly even worth considering the many virtues of a free press, the difficulty of sustaining a free press in the face of celebrity, political and financial pressure, the ease with which a free press can be muzzled, and the likely consequences of losing a free press?
> 
> Isn't it?


I guess it depends on the free press. I find our current press altogether a bit too loose cannon for comfort. But the answer is not a binary one: a completely wild and unaccountable free press, or Soviet Russia. It should be possible, notwithstanding the Press's desperate attempts to subvert it, to put together a system which holds them accountable, after the fact if necessary, to people for what they write about them. A free press is one thing, a press apparently with impunity quite another.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Jul 4, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28160626

pfft

( for those that cant link, Coulson got 18 months )


----------



## Doctor Carrot (Jul 4, 2014)

Lord knows why he looks so miserable going to pri....I mean holiday camp?


----------



## 1%er (Jul 4, 2014)

Having now watched Four Corners it seems that both Brooks and Murdoch have made public admissions that News Corp broke the law by paying public officials. So if News Corp faces corporate charges they will have to explain their statements/admissions re paying serving police personal and public officials.

There is no public interest defense as payments were made.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 4, 2014)

Must be relieved his sentencing day coinciding with Rolf Harris, pushed him off the front pages....


----------



## kenny g (Jul 5, 2014)

I really fail to see why these scum aren't flogged severely, and then hung to be eaten by dogs. Oh, wait a second, that was the kind o f comment they made their money from for year after year of bile.


----------



## Celyn (Jul 5, 2014)

kenny g said:


> I really fail to see why these scum aren't flogged severely, and then hung to be eaten by dogs. ...



You neglected to specify "devil dogs" or "killer dogs".   

Anyway, it would be unfair to poison the dogs


----------



## coltrane (Jul 5, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> Must be relieved his sentencing day coinciding with Rolf Harris, pushed him off the front pages....



Dave Cameron would be another very relieved man too.

Cameron's mealy mouthed comment on his former Director of Communications sentence was: 



> "Well, what it says is that it is right that justice should be done and no one is above the law, which is what I have always said."



That is all he had to say on the matter.

I've had a few Friday night beers and I can't be arsed deconstructing such an incisive analysis from our Prime Minister.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 7, 2014)

Coulson to appear at Glasgow High Court on 6th August in connection with perjury charges 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28199829

Commonwealth Games is on then, he'll have a devil of a job getting a hotel room for the duration...


----------



## weepiper (Jul 7, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Coulson to appear at Glasgow High Court on 6th August in connection with perjury charges
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28199829
> 
> Commonwealth Games is on then, he'll have a devil of a job getting a hotel room for the duration...


I'm sure HMP Barlinnie will find a room for him.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Coulson to appear at Glasgow High Court on 6th August in connection with perjury charges
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28199829
> 
> Commonwealth Games is on then, he'll have a devil of a job getting a hotel room for the duration...


 yep, if he is found guilty of perjury during the Sheridan perjury trial - does that mean Sheridan has a chance of getting his guilty verdict overturned?


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 8, 2014)

marty21 said:


> yep, if he is found guilty of perjury during the Sheridan perjury trial - does that mean Sheridan has a chance of getting his guilty verdict overturned?



That's what Sheridan and his pals are relying on. The issue will be whether the Appeal judges believe/say Coulson (he was called by Sheridan as a witness) had a material effect on the verdict.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 8, 2014)

Fedayn said:


> That's what Sheridan and his pals are relying on. The issue will be whether the Appeal judges believe/say Coulson (he was called by Sheridan as a witness) had a material effect on the verdict.


 so they need to wait for the outcome of a Coulson perjury trial and then apply to have a retrial of the Sheridan perjury trial - this saga seems endless.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 8, 2014)

marty21 said:


> so they need to wait for the outcome of a Coulson perjury trial and then apply to have a retrial of the Sheridan perjury trial - this saga seems endless.



I'm not sure. Sheridan has an appeal into the review board having already failed with one appeal. I'm not sure of the timescale that's coming up.


----------



## Dan U (Jul 9, 2014)

chickens/roosting



> Andy Coulson, the ex-Editor of News of the World and the the Prime Minister's former press chief,  has allegedly been attacked in prison by a fellow inmate.
> 
> A source told *IBTimes UK *that Coulson's past quickly caught up with him inside Belmarsh jail last Saturday [5 July], on only his second day in the tough Category A prison in south east London.
> 
> ...



http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/andy-coulson-attacked-belmarsh-prison-by-crook-news-world-story-1455868


----------



## laptop (Jul 10, 2014)

_Private Eye_ has a _long_ list of things that Brooks admitted to during the trial...


----------



## scalyboy (Jul 13, 2014)

laptop said:


> _Private Eye_ has a _long_ list of things that Brooks admitted to during the trial...


I've just been reading the 6-page spread in _Private Eye_ on the trial; it's still a matter of great perplexity (to me at least, and, no doubt, to many here) how a jury did not find her guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice...could anyone point me in the direction of the judge's summing-up? 

Also (and I think this was covered upthread - have looked but couldn't find it), did someone say that the traditional stipulation that a guilty verdict must be "beyond a reasonable doubt" has recently been changed to some other wording? This interests me, cos I reckon if I had been on that jury I would have thought it "unreasonable" to believe her inncocent of the charges...


----------



## strung out (Jul 13, 2014)

It is notoriously harder to prove guilt on conspiracy charges. Suspicion or knowledge that something has happened is not enough, it needs to be proven that the defendant has conspired to do something, which is that much harder.

The wording has been changed to "must be sure that the defendant is guilty" btw.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jul 13, 2014)

Aye, juries kept asking what constituted a reasonable doubt, and the Court of Appeal said (after various trial judges had given their interpretations) that the only suitable alternative is 'sure of guilt'. This has become the norm since it's clearer than BARD. How 'sure' a jury has to be is entirely up to them.


----------



## scalyboy (Jul 13, 2014)

To me, being "sure" is a lot different to not having a "reasonable doubt" - it seems a major shift. I suppose it is good for defendants in a general sense...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 13, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> I've just been reading the 6-page spread in _Private Eye_ on the trial; it's still a matter of great perplexity (to me at least, and, no doubt, to many here) how a jury did not find her guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice...could anyone point me in the direction of the judge's summing-up?


I think it was because the person approached her offering to sell something, she didn't initiate it.


----------



## laptop (Jul 17, 2014)

Development in the Daniel Morgan murder case... retired cop accuses News International


----------



## Lurdan (Jul 18, 2014)

Interesting Peter Jukes profile of Rebekah Brooks in advance of his forthcoming book about the trial :

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/07/rupert-s-red-top-rise-and-fall-rebekah-brooks


----------



## MrSki (Jul 18, 2014)




----------



## laptop (Jul 21, 2014)

Best here, I think:



> *Tulisa Contostavlos trial collapses over Mazher Mahmood evidence*
> Judge tells jury case cannot go further because of 'strong grounds to believe' undercover reporter [Mazher Mahmood] lied at hearing



http://www.theguardian.com/culture/...los-trial-collapses-mazher-mahmood?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 21, 2014)

laptop said:


> Best here, I think:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/culture/...los-trial-collapses-mazher-mahmood?CMP=twt_gu



Ooops!


----------



## scalyboy (Jul 21, 2014)

Pleased for Tulisa


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 21, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Ooops!
> 
> View attachment 58033


----------



## brogdale (Jul 22, 2014)

Reading Hickman's LRB piece on the NI trial, ("The ballad of Andy and Rebekah"), I was reminded that a serving Minister of State attending Cabinet gave a character reference for the convicted criminal.

FFS


----------



## Betsy (Jul 26, 2014)

_*Phone hacking: Coulson asked if he has moved personal wealth to avoid costs*


Court hears dispute over whether Andy Coulson or News UK must pay £750,000 costs after phone hacking trial
he former editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson, is facing questions over the whereabouts of his personal wealth as prosecutors seek £750,000 in costs following his phone-hacking conviction.
Lawyers for the Crown have applied to the court for Coulson, 46, to pay potentially crippling costs following the eight-month long trial that ended him being jailed for 18 months.

"We want to investigate where the money has gone," said Andrew Edis QC for the prosecution during a costs hearing on Friday.

Coulson is hoping that an indemnity contract with his former employer, News UK, will cover the costs if they are ordered against him, but whether that will happen is in dispute. The Crown wants to know what has happened to the money Coulson has earned since he resigned from the News of the World in 2007. Coulson has provided an affidavit about his assets, but the prosecution wants him to provide more information and said it was not uncommon for people in Coulson's situation to move money.

"A lot of money has passed through Mr Coulson's hands over the past few years," said Andrew Edis QC for the prosecution. "There doesn't seem to be very much left  … in a situation such as this when someone anticipates they might be convicted having been charged in 2012, it is not at all uncommon for transfers of money to take place whereby they are not in his ownership, but may still be accessible to him later on if the need arises."_

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/25/andy-coulson-phone-hacking-trial-costs


----------



## brogdale (Jul 26, 2014)

Betsy said:


> _* Coulson askled if he has moved personal wealth to avoid costs*_



Redundant question of the year award.


----------



## Betsy (Jul 26, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Redundant question of the year award.


----------



## 8den (Jul 28, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/theguard...ign-news-of-the-world-hack-attack-nick-davies


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 28, 2014)

8den said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/theguard...ign-news-of-the-world-hack-attack-nick-davies


What a vile bunch of cunts,one would need a heart of stone not to laugh at Coulson's current predicament.....


----------



## Betsy (Jul 30, 2014)

I hope it is alright to tag this onto this thread rather than starting a new one...
_
*Phone hacking: NoW’s Neil Wallis and Jules Stenson to be charged*

News of the World’s former deputy editor and features editor to face charges over an alleged conspiracy to hack phones_

_http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/30/phone-hacking-now-neil-wallis-jules-stenson-charged_


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 30, 2014)

Betsy said:


> I hope it is alright to tag this onto this thread rather than starting a new one...
> _
> *Phone hacking: NoW’s Neil Wallis and Jules Stenson to be charged*
> 
> ...


Would fucking laugh if  Neil the Wolfman Wallis gets done,been playing the victim card over the last few months


----------



## brogdale (Jul 30, 2014)

Gingerman said:


> Would fucking laugh if  Neil the Wolfman Wallis gets done,been playing the victim card over the last few months



His response is certainly laughable...I mean IRA "comfort letters" are one thing, but...



> Former News of the World deputy editor Neil Wallis said he is "devastated" to face a "swingeing, indiscriminate charge" of conspiring to hack phones, more than a year after he was told he would face no further action.



The Wolfman apparently overlooking that the assurance given was a result of Weeting, not Pinetree. He goes on to say...



> "I am devastated that more than three years after my initial arrest, this has been brought against me. My family and I have already paid a huge price from the police's very public attention.
> 
> "Perhaps it is inevitable that after being such an outspoken critic of the collateral damage and pain caused by this endlessly vindictive and enormously costly investigation the ire has been turned on me for something that occurred at News International which I was not party to and have always said was wrong.
> 
> "Sadly, legal reporting restrictions prevent me commenting further on this sad day."



Ha, fucking ha.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 30, 2014)

brogdale said:


> His response is certainly laughable...I mean IRA "comfort letters" are one thing, but...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"My family and I have already paid a huge price for the police’s very public attention" 

No  mention of the hounding of  innocent people by the  rags he edited over the years,fuck him,hope the cunt goes down.......


----------



## Schmetterling (Aug 1, 2014)

Coulson 'attacked' again; hoping to move:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/andy-coul...belmarsh-must-consider-151002309.html#vxvNUem

'Winning a transfer to a different part of Belmarsh would have the benefit of also getting Coulson away from his current cell mate, former colleague Neville Thurlbeck, a senior reporter under him at the NoW.
Thurlbeck was sentenced for six months at the same Old Bailey trial as Coulson.
According to Private Eye, the pair are cooped up together in a hot, tiny cell for hours on end, which is bound to be awkward, considering how they condemned one other during the phone-hacking trial.'

*snigger*  '...hot, tiny cell ...'


----------



## brogdale (Aug 1, 2014)

Schmetterling said:


> Coulson 'attacked' again; hoping to move:
> 
> https://uk.news.yahoo.com/andy-coul...belmarsh-must-consider-151002309.html#vxvNUem
> 
> ...




Off to the paedo wing....that should go well; I mean surely the nonces won't have any beef with the NoTW...will they?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 1, 2014)

Schmetterling said:


> Coulson 'attacked' again; hoping to move:
> 
> https://uk.news.yahoo.com/andy-coul...belmarsh-must-consider-151002309.html#vxvNUem
> 
> 'Winning a transfer to a different part of Belmarsh would have the benefit of also getting Coulson away from his current cell mate, former colleague Neville Thurlbeck, a senior reporter under him at the NoW.



Plus, Nev's always on the lookout for the inside story


Spoiler: Never grows old, this one...


----------



## Schmetterling (Aug 1, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Plus, Nev's always on the lookout for the inside story
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Never grows old, this one...
> ...


 
 Is that Thurbeck?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 1, 2014)

Schmetterling said:


> Is that Thurbeck?


None other - covertly filmed by suspicious sting victims.


----------



## brogdale (Aug 1, 2014)

Pixelated cock.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 1, 2014)

thats how it looks irl


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 1, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Pixelated cock.


For me right now, the biggest problem, the biggest fear, is The Gush


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 1, 2014)

when did he make his excuses and leave?


----------



## 1%er (Aug 1, 2014)

Schmetterling said:


> Coulson 'attacked' again; hoping to move:
> 
> https://uk.news.yahoo.com/andy-coul...belmarsh-must-consider-151002309.html#vxvNUem
> 
> ...


Wasn't the sun one of the papers that used to report on prisoners having cable TV and video games in their cells*, good for them to have a look at reality of life banged up


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 1, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> when did he make his excuses and leave?


_After_ having a tug whilst watching the B&B owners have sex as he rubbed the landlady's feet.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 1, 2014)

1%er said:


> Wasn't the sun one of the papers that used to report on prisoners having cable TV and video games in their cells*, good for them to have a look at reality of life banged up



Pity the Murdochs and all their other horrible minions aren't jammed in there with them.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 5, 2014)

Fedayn said:


> I'm not sure. Sheridan has an appeal into the review board having already failed with one appeal. I'm not sure of the timescale that's coming up.


 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-28662098

Tommy is back in play


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 5, 2014)

Glad I'm not a Scotch trot


----------



## brogdale (Aug 6, 2014)

Some cheering news for Belmarsh inmate Coulson....

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/06/andy-coulson-charged-perjury-tommy-sheridan-case



> Andy Coulson, the former editor of the News of the World, has been formally charged with three counts of perjury in a hearing in Scotland.
> In a three-page indictment handed down at the high court in Glasgow, Coulson has been accused of lying about his knowledge of phone hacking at the now defunct Sunday tabloid, lying about his knowledge of the “culture” of hacking at the paper and lying about his knowledge of payments allegedly made to corrupt police officers while editor of the paper.
> 
> Coulson did not attend the hour-long preliminary hearing and did not enter a plea.



Brooks must be pissing herself.


----------



## marty21 (Aug 6, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Some cheering news for Belmarsh inmate Coulson....
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/06/andy-coulson-charged-perjury-tommy-sheridan-case
> 
> ...


 as is Tommy


----------



## brogdale (Aug 10, 2014)

Good to see Operation Tuleta yielding some results....



> Ashford has been charged with two criminal offences in relation to a stolen mobile phone he examined after it was handed into the Sun in 2009 while he was working for the paper in Manchester. He denies the charges.
> 
> The 35-year-old, who is now working for a news agency in Plymouth, is *the first person on trial in relation to Operation Tuleta, Scotland Yard’s investigation into computer hacking.*
> 
> He has been charged with possession of criminal property and accessing messages on the phone without authorisation of its owner, a female PR executive.



What a whinging, self-obsessed arse-hole this guy sounds.


----------



## coltrane (Aug 12, 2014)

Neville Thurlbeck out of jail after serving 37 Days of a 6 Month sentence:

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-12/news-of-the-world-reporter-out-of-jail-after-just-37-days/

Seems kinda quick.

Is Coulson going to be released after serving a couple of more months of his 18 month sentence?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Aug 12, 2014)

coltrane said:


> Neville Thurlbeck out of jail after serving 37 Days of a 6 Month sentence:
> 
> http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-08-12/news-of-the-world-reporter-out-of-jail-after-just-37-days/
> 
> ...


Is he out on a tag? That might explain it.


----------



## Dogsauce (Aug 13, 2014)

Maybe he sang and was rewarded?


----------



## laptop (Aug 13, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Maybe he sang and was rewarded?



Intuitively, I'd expect that to take longer.


----------



## laptop (Aug 19, 2014)

_Press Gazette_ roundup of the 64 arrested journalists: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/conte...ed-andor-charged-following-news-world-hacking


----------



## Betsy (Nov 18, 2014)

*Andy Coulson Set To Be Released From Suffolk 'Holiday Camp'*

_Andy Coulson could be released from prison later this week.

The former News of the World (NoTW) editor and Downing Street communications boss is set to be freed on Friday, the Daily Mail said.

Coulson, 46, was jailed for 18 months on July 4 after he was found guilty of conspiring to intercept voicemails at the now-defunct Sunday tabloid at the Old Bailey._

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/18/andy-coilson-prison-release_n_6177322.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


----------



## brogdale (Nov 18, 2014)

Betsy said:


> *Andy Coulson Set To Be Released From Suffolk 'Holiday Camp'*
> 
> _Andy Coulson could be released from prison later this week._
> 
> ...



But he has missed this year's Xmas book market.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Nov 18, 2014)

the scape goat is being freed


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 18, 2014)

ruffneck23 said:


> the scape goat is being freed


More of an"escape goat" then.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 18, 2014)

brogdale said:


> But he has missed this year's Xmas book market.


Has he even been in long enough to write his bookywooky ! ?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 19, 2014)

So he'll have served about a quarter of his sentence in actual jail.

Is that fairly typical for people who aren't mates of the prime minister as well?


----------



## redcogs (Nov 19, 2014)

just occasionally one has cause to regret that the rope is no longer available as a punishment.  It had the big advantage of ensuring that the offender could not repeat their crimes again in the future.

Still, i suppose a spell at Barlinnie is better than nothing.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 21, 2014)

And he's freeeeeeeeeeee - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...n-released-from-prison-on-electronic-tag.html

20 fucking weeks lol


----------



## Dogsauce (Nov 21, 2014)

Good day to bury news, eh?  Almost like they chose it on purpose...


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2016)

Hello...


----------



## The Octagon (Apr 28, 2016)

That's good timing, hopefully.

Time to shut another one down Rupes?


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2016)




----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 28, 2016)

about time too, lets see that fuckhead brookes worm herself out of this one, and now i dont think her being chums with hameron will do her any good.

Murdoch should be fucking hung too


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2016)

brogdale said:


>



oh frabjous day, coolah coolay


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 28, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> about time too, lets see that fuckhead brookes worm herself out of this one, and now i dont think her being chums with hameron will do her any good.
> 
> Murdoch should be fucking hung too


beside the nefandous hameron and johnson


----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 28, 2016)

I had to look up 'nefandous' , I like it, word of the week methinks


----------



## brogdale (Apr 28, 2016)




----------



## ruffneck23 (Apr 28, 2016)

from that link 

'News Group Newspapers (NGN), which has previously settled a large number of cases brought against the now-defunct News of the World, has always said there was no hacking activity at its sister tabloid.'


----------



## gawkrodger (Apr 28, 2016)

ruffneck23 said:


> I had to look up 'nefandous' , I like it, word of the week methinks



Inspired by PMs post, I have just used it in an email


----------



## redcogs (Mar 18, 2017)

Tommy - 1.  Murdoch Press - 0.

Final appeal over Tommy Sheridan defamation ruling appeal - BBC News

Excellent to see.


----------

