Phone hacking: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson

TigaSefi wrote:

Memento Mori » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:07 pm wrote:

TigaSefi » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:54 pm wrote:Piers Morgan going off on one! Says Coulson is a great friend and shouldn't be treated as a crim

Unrelated fact: Jeremy Paxman told the Leveson inquiry about an occasion where Piers Morgan told him how to hack a phone and repeated the contents of Ulrika Jonsson's voicemails.

Why hasn't he been arrested for this?

He was interviewed under caution last year.

Eighthours » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:19 pm wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:11 pm wrote:

Eighthours » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:09 pm wrote:The jury have been gotten to!!

EDIT: Or... er... Brooks is innocent and Coulson is guilty.

Like strawberry float she is.

In the words of the great Charlie Higson, could it be possible that the jury who spent 7 months hearing evidence know more about the case than people on Twitter?

Your existing prejudices have not been reinforced, oh noes! How confusing for you!

Justice system is infallible, phew, good to know.

Tineash » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:13 pm wrote:

Eighthours » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:19 pm wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:11 pm wrote:

Eighthours » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:09 pm wrote:The jury have been gotten to!!

EDIT: Or... er... Brooks is innocent and Coulson is guilty.

Like strawberry float she is.

In the words of the great Charlie Higson, could it be possible that the jury who spent 7 months hearing evidence know more about the case than people on Twitter?

Your existing prejudices have not been reinforced, oh noes! How confusing for you!

Justice system is infallible, phew, good to know.

Verdict must be wrong because we hate the defendant, phew, good to know.

LOL BIAS.

EDIT: Before the case, I thought that Brooks must be guilty. Luckily, though, we don't practice summary justice in this country.

Completely innocent.

This is a woman who for years, spent every day manipulating the thoughts and opinions of millions of readers. A jury is child's play.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:This is a woman who for years, spent every day manipulating the thoughts and opinions of millions of readers. A jury is child's play.

Won't you have been getting your details from the court case from that manipulated media?

I am with Eight on this. I am surprised she has gotten off completely and, like most, had already expected her to be guilty. While any trial is not infallible, it is infinitely more likely that the jury were more informed than us conducting trial by keyboard.

Are juries wrong? Yes.

But so are people dishing out verdicts and judgments on the Internet. Especially as they have already made their mind up on the issue. They wouldn't even be allowed to sit on the jury!

So by being found 'innocent' we're to believe Brooks had no idea how her paper was being run in her entire time as editor. Amazing.

Worst thing is watching all the media scum like Louise Mensch and Morgan claim this is a victory for the press. Jesus.

Blue Eyes » Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:11 pm wrote:I for one am glad that total fox has been proved innocent.

Not just me, then?

Few surprises yesterday. Probably good to remember that although our legal system operates on a dichotomy, it is rarely reached with anything like such simplicity.

I was particularly surprised by the Charlie Brooks not guilty for perverting the course of justice. The whole hiding computer thing suggested he was bang to rights. I wondered if it was about intent. He said porn and the prosecution could not prove otherwise. But this section on the CPS website suggests it is not quite so straight forward.

The prosecution must prove either an intent to pervert the course of justice or an intent to do something which, if achieved, would pervert the course of justice. All that is necessary is proof of knowledge of all the circumstances, and the intentional doing of an act which has a tendency, when objectively viewed, to pervert the course of justice.

I struggle to see how hiding a computer, even for different reasons could not be seen as an intentional act, which if achieved, would pervert the course of justice. Any suggestions?

Harry Ola » Wed Jun 25, 2014 8:00 am wrote:Few surprises yesterday. Probably good to remember that although our legal system operates on a dichotomy, it is rarely reached with anything like such simplicity.

I was particularly surprised by the Charlie Brooks not guilty for perverting the course of justice. The whole hiding computer thing suggested he was bang to rights. I wondered if it was about intent. He said porn and the prosecution could not prove otherwise. But this section on the CPS website suggests it is not quite so straight forward.

The prosecution must prove either an intent to pervert the course of justice or an intent to do something which, if achieved, would pervert the course of justice. All that is necessary is proof of knowledge of all the circumstances, and the intentional doing of an act which has a tendency, when objectively viewed, to pervert the course of justice.

I struggle to see how hiding a computer, even for different reasons could not be seen as an intentional act, which if achieved, would pervert the course of justice. Any suggestions?

Huge amounts of money being spent on the best lawyers in the business in finding loopholes?

Now that Brooks has been proven innocent, will she admit to being completely incompetent as an editor? After all, being completely ignorant of what was happening under her leadership is the only possible way for her to be innocent.

It's quite sickening how incestuous the relationships between the press and politicians appear to be in this trial. These are the people supposedly there to hold leaders to account and yet there she is blatantly socialising and befriending leaders from both main parties and even getting advise and encouragement from a previous PM. If you cannot trust the press to hold democratic leaders to account then you have a seriously dysfunctional democracy.

I just thought I would mention this as, unsurprisingly, few people in the media seem to be concerned about it.

18 months in prison for Coulson

Learning Curve wrote:Now that Brooks has been proven innocent, will she admit to being completely incompetent as an editor? After all, being completely ignorant of what was happening under her leadership is the only possible way for her to be innocent.

It's quite sickening how incestuous the relationships between the press and politicians appear to be in this trial. These are the people supposedly there to hold leaders to account and yet there she is blatantly socialising and befriending leaders from both main parties and even getting advise and encouragement from a previous PM. If you cannot trust the press to hold democratic leaders to account then you have a seriously dysfunctional democracy.

I just thought I would mention this as, unsurprisingly, few people in the media seem to be concerned about it.

Don't you have a dysfunctional democracy if the people rely on the press to hold leaders to account? The press is populist... It has an audience. The government is supposed to serve all people.

You can't trust the national press to stand in for people's views at all.

[iup=3499054]Green Gecko[/iup] wrote:

Learning Curve wrote:Now that Brooks has been proven innocent, will she admit to being completely incompetent as an editor? After all, being completely ignorant of what was happening under her leadership is the only possible way for her to be innocent.

It's quite sickening how incestuous the relationships between the press and politicians appear to be in this trial. These are the people supposedly there to hold leaders to account and yet there she is blatantly socialising and befriending leaders from both main parties and even getting advise and encouragement from a previous PM. If you cannot trust the press to hold democratic leaders to account then you have a seriously dysfunctional democracy.

I just thought I would mention this as, unsurprisingly, few people in the media seem to be concerned about it.

Don't you have a dysfunctional democracy if the people rely on the press to hold leaders to account? The press is populist... It has an audience. The government is supposed to serve all people.

You can't trust the national press to stand in for people's views at all.

I don't trust the press at all, scum of the earth that they are.

Well that's a simplistic, reductionist way of looking at one of the important facets of a free society.

Apart from the fact most of the press is owned.
How does the press hold the leaders to account? They pick and choose and in many cases, simply don't.

Why does the press need to stand in for the view of the people?

My post was more aimed at ironhide.

'Most of the press is owned' - what does that even mean?

I agree they often don't hold those who are in power to account. However they sometimes do, and there is always the inherent threat that can dissuade illegal or immoral dealings by politicians and the like.

How do you gauge the views of the people without the press?

As Churchill said, there is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion.

Churchill said that before the internet existed.

Right. So how do politicians find out the views of the people now? Frequent every discussion board and read all the comments under newspaper articles?

It's not hacking related but it does involve scummy bastards and their scummy behaviour.

Kellie Maloney went public about life as woman 'after newspaper threats'

Former boxing promoter says journalists threatened to expose her and doorstepped members of her family

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/a ... g-promoter