- Why was Coulson thrown under the bus?
It’s a bloody good question that, and not one that (currently – if ever) I have the answer to. However, it could be that they held so much dirt on certain powerful people that the whole process was nobbled. Seems far fetched I know – and I’m certainly not a member of the tin hat brigade – but its becoming more and more apparent that the establishment is quite sophisticated in the way that enormous crimes can be made to disappear.
Also, could be the cut-throat defence, in that they all blame each other and there’s not enough evidence to categorically convict any of them.
Could be “following orders” and the guy at the top (ie Coulson) gets it?
The only hope now id that they somehow manage to pin something onto Piers Moron, assuming he can ge renditioned back from exile in the states..Posted 4 years agofootflapsMember
How the hell did they all get away with it even though damages have been paid to the victims
They didn’t pay the victims, the publisher did, which is not the same as an individual admitting guilt. We all know it happened, there just isn’t enough evidence left to pin it on anyone senior.Posted 4 years agokimbersSubscriber
not just coulson…
Coulson, along with three former news editors, the chief reporter, features editor, royal editor and a feature writer, have all either been convicted of, or pleaded guilty to phone hacking
wallis’ defence was that the others were really good at hiding it all from him so he never knew that all those exclusive stories were from hacked voicemails
which smells like BS to me, newscorp have fessed up to 341 hacks so far
but in his case their obviously wasnt enough evidence to convict him of invlovement (or Brooks for that matter)Posted 4 years agobinnersSubscriber
How the hell did they all get away with it even though damages have been paid to the victims.
You know who their mates are,right?
As someone who’s worked in publishing, the suggesttion that an editor wouldn’t demand to know every single last detail of where information for sensitive stories was coming from, before publishing them, is utterly preposterous!
Proving that however….Posted 4 years agomikewsmithMember
As someone who’s worked in publishing, the idea that an editor wouldn’t demand to know every single detail of where information for sensitive stories was coming from, is utterly preposterous!
Proving that however….Posted 4 years ago
Yep binners got that in writing? Only idiots discuss illegal things in ways that they can be prosecutedpjt201Member
The reason they pay out but aren’t criminally convicted is because of the basis of our legal system. The burden of proof in civil cases (ie those brought by “victims” of phone hacking against the publishers of hacked material) is based on the balance of probabilities whereas the burden of proof in criminal cases (ie the queen vs the individual who hacked) is based upon the case being found beyond reasonable doubt.
The publishers don’t want to allow civil cases to go to court, because they would likely lose (if the victim can prove there’s no other way the information could have been obtained that would likely be sufficient) and not only have to pay damages but also their own and the victims legal costs so paying them off is far cheaper and easier.
Proving beyond reasonable doubt that x actually dialled the number, used the password and hacked y’s phone is much more tricky. The evidence that via phone hacking was the most likely way the information was obtained would clearly be insufficient to be beyond reasonable doubt.Posted 4 years agomtMember
Alternatively, some of them could have been innocent and what has happened has been a form of revenge by certain parts of the political class. It’s not as though there were not threats by some of our political leaders on finding out that they were no longer getting the support they wanted. Call me a silly billy but there is much gone on with having a go at Murdoch and Co than we are seeing. Having said that, the phone hacking and other activities of so called journalists has been disgusting and those that do get found guilty truly deserve it.Posted 4 years agobrooessMember
Read this. The author hasn’t been sued by Rupert Murdoch as far as I know so you can assume it’s probably true.
It’s an eye-opener. In some ways not a good idea to read it, it can leave you rather cynical about how much really nasty behaviour people can get away with it if they’re manipulative enough. The photos of Coulson and Wade above show you how close these people get to the very top in order to give themselves protection…Posted 4 years ago
If the general public read that book and decided to stop paying any of Murdoch’s businesses as a matter of principle, he’s lose his power overnight but I don’t think people are aware enough or care enough to do this – which he knows of course…meftyMember
According to Richard Desmond, not the most reliable source, when he turned up at the Daily Express his staff were presented with expense claims from the special investigations section for payments to sources. They refused to provide details of what the payments were for, but showed the stories that had been generated. He said he didn’t work like that and closed them down, probably saved himself a huge amount of money.Posted 4 years ago
as others note it is somewhat bizarre that they can admit they did it , pay out and yet the only person who knew was one editor [ though it happened under multiple watches and for multiple departments
Its beyond stretching credulity to think that is even remotely accurately of reality
Was it because they have friends in high places or due to burden of proof personally I fear its the former
FWIW its worth noting that those low people they paid for leaks – coppers, prison guards etc have also done time as it is illegal to pay someone in public office. Again those who paid did not get sent down.
you never hear about levessson or the media being help properly to account anymore do you ?Posted 4 years ago
they have to much power and they clearly abuse it
we need a free press in a democracy but what we have is closer to the mafia/bullies than a free press.dannyhMember
In simple terms two words.
The subjective nature of the word “plausible” is what the last god knows how many years of inquiries and trials have been about.
How much you can stretch credulity and plausibility is directly proportional to the number of important people you know or know stuff about.
It stinks to high heaven, but it was ever thus.Posted 4 years ago
Would it not just be that he was the only one that they could ‘prove’ conspired. It doesn’t have to mean that he conspired alone.
I dont see how you can prove he conspired but have no proof of who he conspired with .
You cannot conspire alone as the word means to work with othersPosted 4 years agonemesisSubscriber
Surely there are any number of scenarios that could meet that – anonymous emails for example proving that a conspiracy took place but impossible to say who the other party(s) was. Or simply that it wouldn’t be possible for a single person to do it alone and therefore it had to be a conspiracy. Or that several defendants confirmed that he was involved but disagreed about who else was involved so it couldn’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt who the other guilty parties were.Posted 4 years agoircMember
Not sure I’d think my friends in high places had done much good if I ended up in front of a jury for perjury, conspiracy etc.
I think they were not convicted because the standard of proof is high in criminal cases. Guilty people walk free all the time. A necessary price so that very few innocent people are convicted.
So who knows the truth in these cases other than those involved.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Why was Coulson thrown under the bus?’ is closed to new replies.