Forum menu
Even though clearly bin bags of information were removed from the NI security archives and bags removed from Brooks marital home in the days before their arrest....
Rebekah' is cleared.
I was hoping to see her doing porridge. The system eh?
Yep, but Coulson guilty - that must be some consolation to see Cameron's press man heading for the cells?
How the **** has she got away with that?
MSP, we don't often agree but +1 big boneo to the legal team!!!
[quote=MSP ]How the **** has she got away with that?
its not what you did, it's who your mates are...
Well from what I've read in the press I cannot believe she's been found not guilty, so to give her the benefit of the doubt perhaps the case wasn't as strong as it appeared or was reported. I am quite surprised she and her husband haven't been found guilty of destroying evidence.
Murdoch agreed to pay all her legal costs on the grounds she was cleared, if she'd been found guilty she would have had to pay and would probably have been bankrupted.
[quote=jam bo said]MSP » How the **** has she got away with that?
its not what you did, it's who your mates are...
The jury ?
Its not who you know, its what you know about people who you know.
Well, bugger me.
Its amazing what you can get away with if your rich and powerful.
Next issue of Private Eye will be interesting!
Eat the rich,etcetera.
Shocking!!!!
The pair of em should be doing time!
How can he have been guilty and everyone else cleared 😯
To quote private eye IMHO if that is justice i am a banana
I suspect an inquiry, in about 25 years time, finds them guilty
cameroon is apologising for employing coulson and hopefully will now resign as well.
But unlikely.
@project - Cameron is never going to resign over this, he will (possible quite rightly) say he didn't know anything about the issue when he hired him.
Cameron resigning would result in another similar tory popping up...
Even though clearly bin bags of information were removed from the NI security archives and bags removed from Brooks marital home in the days before their arrest.
Yeah, but the more you looked into the police claims about missing things, the more they fell apart - like the myriad "missing" computers, that turned out to be a list of everything that had ever hooked to the Brooks family wifi, including friends iPads, mobile phones etc.
The only thing 'proven' to have been removed seems to have been Charlie Brooks porn collection and laptop with his writing work on it, and given what had gone on, personally I can't blame him for thinking a bent copper might leak that to the press.
Edit.
Plus of course Miliband can't really say too much about News International at the moment, can he?
I laughed out loud when Brook's husbands explanation as to why he was seeing spiriting away bin bags on his flat-blocks CCTV was 'it was pron mags. I didn't want the Police to see these/embarrass my wife'.
I'd laugh but no, come on. Do you think the Police would be that bothered over smut.
Or was it smut?..
I'd laugh but no, come on. Do you think the Police would be that bothered over smut.
It's not whether the police would be bothered, but which newspaper they would sell the story to...
But faced with the possible 'this might be seen as disposing of evidence if caught etc' surely damage limitation would dictate Razzle and Mayfair are nothing..
In this day and age...its all on PC's anyway. So really, what was in those black bags?
project - Member
Its not who you know, its what you know about people who you know.
Too true.
n this day and age...its all on PC's anyway. So really, what was in those black bags?
Hard drives?
On an unrelated thought, Rolf Harris jury have been out for 4 days now, verdict must be due soon.
If only someone hacked hacked her account to get evidence.... 🙂
On an unrelated thought, Rolf Harris jury have been out for 4 days now, verdict must be due soon.
Can you tell what it is yet?
Unbelievable verdict! How could the editor not be complicit in the whole shabby affair?
On an unrelated thought, Rolf Harris jury have been out for 4 days now, verdict must be due soon.
Tie me down in a cell, sport?
What 'edge' did Coulson have over other potential candidates when Cameron appointed him? Was it this hi-tech 'black arts' approach that could have been immensely useful to the party in power?
we weren't there, the Jury were... and for me that's the end of it - what gets reported in the press (especially the bbc which has an axe to grind) and what actually happened in court are quite often two separate things.
By way of example remember the massive credit card paedophile scandal / "operation ore" in which the police announced they had identified thousands of suspects care of credit card billing data...? What didn't happen next is quite telling but it's a classic example of the police leaking evidence and trying to use the court of public opinion - the whole sorry shambles is documented rather well on wikipedia including some of the people who were named and shamed in public and have never had their reputations restored :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore
we weren't there, the Jury were... and for me that's the end of it - what gets reported in the press (especially the bbc which has an axe to grind) and what actually happened in court are quite often two separate things.
I think it was more likely reasonable doubt. Where was the evidence to convict her? Could a conviction be secured that she was guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
'especially the bbc which has an axe to grind'. The people on here who work at the beeb (on the IT front as well as in other areas) suggest that their colleagues are obsessed with impartiality. Mmmmm. What bikes you got Rob?
we weren't there, the Jury were... and for me that's the end of it
It is not infallible and we can still disagree.
By way of an example Birmingham 6, Jill Dando killer etc.
Still not getting how he knew but she did not..she was his boss and they were intimate...like they would never have spoken about it.
That is hard to swallow tbh.
Exactly, hence why I was laughing when I heard the verdict.
There would have been SOME sort of paperwork trail. How do you square off bribes and payments without authorisation/your boss knowing and agreeing.
If I were bribing someone then I wouldn't write it in a book or send a memo about it.
Coulson as editor of the NoW was aware of and personally involved in the hacking, it seems hard to believe that Brooks wasn't at least aware if not involved during her time but it seems the evidence wasn't there to convict her.
I wonder whether Mr Coulson might have anything further to say to the police now about his predecessor.
There would have been SOME sort of paperwork trail. How do you square off bribes and payments without authorisation/your boss knowing and agreeing.
I'm no expert, but the thing about illegal payments tends to be that they are rarely the outcome of formal projects. Pretty sure there's no ISO standards for them.
its not what you did, it's who [s]your mates are[/s] you did it with...
That is hard to swallow
That may be what she said to him.
There was a paper trail and indeed a contract but the issue was whether Brooks had personal knowledge of it.
hora - Member
I laughed out loud when Brook's husbands explanation as to why he was seeing spiriting away bin bags on his flat-blocks CCTV was 'it was pron mags. I didn't want the Police to see these/embarrass my wife'.I'd laugh but no, come on. Do you think the Police would be that bothered over smut.
Or was it smut?..
A good way to get away with a whopper is to admit to a lesser offence as a diversion. In this case something embarrassing but not illegal.
If he didn't hide them under a hedge, it wasn't pron.
This is from the Graun and it makes me realise just how loathsome people can become when they are trying to 'go places'.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/24/-sp-rebekah-brooks-profile-news-international-rupert-murdoch- ]Guardian profile of Brooks[/url]
I think the Guardian might also be trying to give her some of her own medicine - the likes of News International were never shy of raking up old dirt (even when acquitted) to help create an impression of someone.
Sadly, though, I think the Guardian will fall short - they won't have the stomach to try to rake up some details of an inherited condition that a relative of hers suffers from as her lot did with Gordon Brown.
She will probably make some kind of comeback as a social/political pundit.
I won't forget for one moment what she is, though - and hopefully nor will a significant amount of people, who will strive to make it difficult for her.
we weren't there, the Jury were
This is true, but when I hear that Rebekah Brooks, one of the most senior former editors in the world's most powerful newspaper empire (we're not talking teaboy at the local rag here) claim that she didn't know hacking was illegal I don't believe her - despite not being in court I'm convinced she's lying.
I've known since I was a child that interfering with people's mail was illegal, there is absolutely no reason to assume that electronic/telephonic mail might be any different.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26337845 ]Rebekah Brooks 'did not know hacking was illegal'[/url]
The question is why would she need to lie under oath in court if she was innocent ?
All smells like Pittenween harbour at low tide
Agree with E_L, the "I didn't know" defence is resting credibility to the extreme.
In a few years the real story of this whole sorry mess will come out. Shame and expensive judicial process couldn't do that (or did it?)