Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Brooks: not guilty
Guilty of being a fucking terrible editor
Oh wait, you're going on about something we debated about 12 months ago
'not guilty = innocent' despite about 40 people explaining that you were wrong, over and over again :D
this case is different though?
to swing that
in the Tommy Sheridan trial?
to coincide with Tommy's appeal.
Talking of which I'm out on the piss with his lot this week, i'll try to find out the goss.
but I have no idea of the ins & outs
PO seems to be your one on that score
by the scottiosh cimrinal cases commissoin rather than an appeal. It's all quite interesting....
so, do they have the power to declare a mistrial or the Scotch egguivalent ?
but they can refer the case back to the high court to be appealed. It's then up to that court to decide whether to quash or uphold the conviction.
Coulson BETRAYED Brooks then
Can't get my head around how he is guilty and she is innocent
Looking forward to Cameron's 'profound' apology though
Need to see more details. Very confusing.
and the jury were so they must have their reasons so they must be right
in reality it probably just means she was quicker at deleting emails/covering her tracks
wasn't there a laptop of hers that was never recovered?
which then mysteriously vanished. And didn't they try and drop a PC off at her(?) house and using codewords from Where Eagles Dare
Why all the spy shit if you're not trying to be discrete?
but it doesnt mean its not a valid point to bring up. every thread is derailed, anyway
case in point
What she's written is fine.
this is one of them
there'd be no fucking threads at all.
(we can but dream)
Louise Mensch has had a total meltdown on twitter about this.
Amazed that she was such a well respected and highly regarded MP
Her sycophantic fawning over Coulson is particularly grim
have a go at those who exposed phone hacking, as if the verdict somehow made the (illegal and actual) act of phone hacking into something that didn't actually happen.
so it all went down the tubes.
Also, I believe she stayed on Twitter while she 'grew' Menschn or something.
It was called Menshun (not a play of words on her name of course)
That venture ended when the chap she tried to start it with collapsed cos it was shit
about ol' UberMensch
No matter how valid it is, especially considering how often the media and the public flirt with the idea of bringing back the death penalty. Scary stuff.
It's definitely depressing how people don't consider that if you saw and heard all evidence you might well have trouble actually saying 'Guilty' as if you were just chatting with a mate.
this is the thread to shout BURN THE WITCH!
Besides if evidence pointed to absolute mathematical certainty, there's no real need for a trial? It'd be a sham
A quick google tells me juries tend to be 90% accurate at best (so around one in ten are theoretically false verdicts) although of course there's so many cases where it's not even possible to tell if they were right or not. It's a murky area isn't it?
this could be a misdirection - it's beyond all reasonable doubt not beyond *any* doubt.
It's 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
In civil cases - on the balance of probabilities, the defendant was more likely liable than not liable
they are told they must be sure of guilt
Somehow I don't think it will.
he is the pained victim of Coulson's treachourous lies!
How could he have betrayed my trust like this!
that he is going to spin his terrible decision making and failure to vet his staff into him being the victim of Coulson's lies
he'll probably say something about how he feels personally let down by putting his trust in Coulson in an attempt to garner sympathy and deflect from all the other issues involved in having put the election campaign and subsequently the No.10 communications HQ into the hands of a guy who stalk the family of a murdered child (for profit) and then lied about it under oath
Not sure what else he can do to be honest.
but also the way Cameron and Osborne by-passed the usual vetting procedures.
...but I don't quite understand the reasons for Cameron making a conscious decision for not having him security checked to the highest level. Seems a bit too risky for me. But what do I know.
Not wishing to get involved in conspiracies about it all at this stage, but there's something horribly and alarmingly unsettling about the Chipping Norton mob (minus Clarkson in this instance) and the media tentacles that extend within Number 10. There's something very odd about them all. Even peripheral figures like Isabel Oakeshott have been tweeting some weirdly emphatic shit in response to it...
If it means that you can effectively sew up a huge chunk of the media in support of you, and have intimidate a lot of the rest through it, and it gains you a place in government through which you can implement many (sadly irreversible) policies, then it's probably seen as worth it.
I'd have thought Cameron was chummy enough with the News International gang in order to have their support nailed on regardless... But there we go. We'll see if anything comes of it.
Murdoch didn't like him, but just being friends with someone doesn't confer the symbiotic relationship that existed between the Tory party and News International in the run up to the election and coalition formation. Coulson also had A LOT of dirt on other papers too.
*Murdoch didn't like him AND being friends with someone doesn't...
or he's being so knowingly misleading in his apology that he might as well be lying. What were the assurances that Coulson gave him? That he didn't do it, or that he wouldn't be caught/this would all blow over? Because this is a classic example of *sorry* (that we got caught).
Or are you suggesting that Coulson told Cameron he wasn't involved and Cameron genuinely believed that?
But it became one, when Cameron appointed him, avoiding the usual processes.
I'm suggesting that I don't actually know. My hunch is that Cameron wouldn't take the risk if he knew that Coulson had actually committed an illegal activity but if evidence comes to light that suggests otherwise then I'll change my mind...
Either you think that Coulson's a bit of a shit and, in this situation at the very least, Cameron is too by association, or you accept that you don't really care that much about phone-hacking and Cameron's response to it. Why bother with the middle ground, it's not you on trial!
Do you really think that Cameron wouldn't lie about this stuff? What risk has Cameron taken by doing so? It's gone about as bad as it could've and all he's had to do is shrug his shoulders, get a new communications director and issue a mealy-mouthed apology years down the line.
But it's probably better to stay on the middle ground than to fire off accusations of lying regarding a situation you don't actually know the ins and outs of.
I don't think that Cameron WOULDN'T lie about this stuff; I just see no evidence that he has and, also, I've seen a 1 or 2 posts on twitter from seemingly ITK types who suggest that Cameron genuinely didn't know about the phone hacking stuff.
It'll all come out sooner or later probably. And the reality is probably a lot more boring than you're hoping for...
and i can really empathise with the fence-sitting, but i'm not sure that your position is as admirable as you might like to think - it's easier, and arguably more cynical, to discuss these things if you don't commit to an opinion on them. You're engaging with the discussion, but in a very detached way. Fair enough if that's the way you go about things, but it's worth remembering that this isn't a debate on epistemology.
I also resent the implication that i'm firing off unfounded accusations and disagree with your claim that there's no evidence - we actually know a fair deal about the situation and individuals and the statements that they've made. Having considered these, I think it's quite fair to come to the conclusion that Cameron's either lying or he's an incredibly naive fool - on balance, I think I'll go with the former.
...and I've actually got pretty strong views on this whole affair to be honest. But the main issue for me is the a) methods of the gutter press of which phone hacking is one example and b) the whole incestuousness between government and these (especially Murdoch owned) media networks. All of these things are monstrous and have genuine implications on our democracy and on the information we are fed and the governance we end up receiving. The reaction to this from some of the right-wing press (Times, Sun and politicians like Mensch) has been galling.
I think all of these things are more pressing than whether or not Cameron employed someone who’d partaken in criminal activity. Seems like a bit of a technicality to me, in the face of a wider issue (I abhor the influence and reach these people have full stop, regardless of whether or not they’ve been found guilty of illegal tactics). And I’ve weighed up the evidence I’ve seen and don’t think there’s compelling evidence he lied, yet.
I think the important thing with all of these is to play the long game. We’ll find out more of the truth in the next 10/20 years about who's been lying...
The Prime Minister hires a former editor of the Sun who is completely embedded in the Murdoch media network, but you think that the more pressing issue is the incestuous relationship between government and media? 9.10am is too early to be smoking crack man!
You've got pretty strong views on this matter, so you think the important thing to do is wait 10-20 years for the truth to come out?!
Also, that line about the truth being a lot more boring than i'm hoping for? I don't get it - i think that Cameron behaved inappropriately and then lied about hiring Coulson, that's not exactly fascinating stuff. My disillusionment lies in the banality of this behaviour as much as anything.
Seems we're in agreement with the stuff regarding the links between the government and the press. Someone like Andy Coulson (and his networks) being given access to the very heart of government is horrid. I just don't think this verdict changes very much in my view with regards to it, and there's a bit of a clamour to ascribe significance that isn't as important as people are making out. But there you go.
Re: Waiting for the truth to come out... these things always take time. Just the order of things isn't it. No more prescient example than Iraq.
- then he isn't fit for office
Again, it's a classic get-out to go with the sorry-not-sorry apology. *I didn't do anything wrong, i just made a terrible error of judgement, but of course i won't face any consequences due to being incompetent, because everyone knows that i did really know what i was doing and am simply saying this because it's what's expected*.
Coulson himself did this at the time, and Brooks, and all of the other politicians that get caught doing things they shouldn't.
will already have made their mind up really.
never hurts to see him eat a bowl of shit, eh?
They remind me of those Characters in GOT, Coulson being the Onion Knight, Brooks the Priestess of fire and Cameron as Stanus. (Its mainly Brooks red hair)
FFS, most obvious case of conspiracy you could ever hope to see
haven't really followed it enough to know the details, but he must be feeling pretty hard done-by.
can he dob em in and save himself some years or whatever? i watch a lot of law & order.
for him being the fall guy.
like seriously wtf is that?
There's a danger that Cameron's links with Coulson might make the electorate crawl back to Labour? QUICK - GET THE ECONOMIC CREDIBILITY SLEDGEHAMMER OUT.
Montgomery is a loon.
What did you expect?
if i was mr milliband i would just come out and start saying how the tories hack all the phones
can we please boycott the sun now please? those who aren't already?
are awaiting sentencing.
I can imagine Benjamin Landless/Arthur Jensen guffawing at the awesome headline they came up with.
Fuck them to hell.
Imagine what one could achieve with just one hand grenade, or similar incendiary device
It is very interesting that people seem to be catching on to this idea that she maybe still did it :
"Rebekah Brooks has been cleared by a jury after an eight month trial and leaves court without a stain on her character. However when you read the press headlines, especially the tabloid press ones, claiming that she has been "innocent" or is "cleared", remember that no one ever knows what that jury really thought. What we know is that after listening to both sides of the argument, those 11 randomly selected people felt they could not be sure enough to convict and for all the money, that is the only fact that matters."
I know from experience that if you say the same thing of certain other crimes, people react very badly and start calling for the law to be changed. Like I'm yet to hear even the right wing cunt journalists on twitter saying stuff like "I think we really need to start looking seriously at anonymity for phone hacking defendants. Rebekah Brooks has had 8 months of her life taken away and her reputation destroyed even though she's not guilty."
are talking bollocks.
You've got someone who knows more about this than just about anybody else, in the court room every day, and he says that Brooks was right to be found not guilty.
And presumably the journalist you mentioned isn't also going around saying Rebekah Brooks wasn't involved in any phone hacking and so we should give her a break? Cause the point I was making is that many people seem very comfortable, in this case, with making a strong distinction between a finding of 'not guilty' and the question of whether Brooks actually hacked phones (including possibly this journalist). Many people are now somehow more able to see the 'not guilty' verdict as merely meaning there wasn't any evidence strong enough to convict her. There is a noticeable difference between this and the reactions to the acquittal of someone like Bill Roache.
The thing with Brooks is that if she is innocent, then she was an appallingly lax and incompetent editor. It's the latter that people have a problem believing.
She has you on the ropes now
just to be safe
the whole postmortem of the case revolved around a discussion of what we can do to protect people in his position in future. on the wright stuff, question time, non-tabloid newspapers, twitter, the general public.
Roache was an individual legal case from which a discussion formed. Brooks' case was one where she was a series of defendants (one of whom was found guilty) and which was related to half a dozen people in her employ admitting to guilt before the trial started.
I don't really think that the two are directly comparable.
of phone hacking conspiracy?
1) the idea that Brooks could have had her anonymity kept in such a situation is ridiculous.
2) it didn't come down to a case of a victim's account against the accused.
1) It has been argued that Bill Roache was simply too famous for anonymity too. They had to take him off Corrie for it. Imagine people hadn't realised it was him :D
2) I don't see why this should matter - the fact that his victims were still saying he did it should be all the more reason NOT to take his no guilty verdict as anything more than a sign that the evidence didn't reach the required threshold. In the case of Brooks, none of her victims are witnesses. Defending her at this stage wouldnt be going directly against the word of a victim of crime as it was in the Roache case.
I don't think Roache deserved any more protection than he got, and I've never said that he did.
I haven't attempted to 'pick a fight' at all - I've made a very relevant point and you seem to have wanted to discuss it with me. Now you don't seem so keen.
what is this all about:
"I don't think Roache deserved any more protection than he got, and I've never said that he did."
where have I even hinted that I think you believe he should have been given more protection?
Feeling a bit low about marckee today.
to be punished in some way, even though they've been found not guilty in a court of law?
All hail our glorious leader
Welcome to Pyongyang
should go through a secondary kangaroo court where they're charged with being a bit right wing and dodge and we don't really like you really. Punishment being we can call them names and pull their hair a bit and watch them cry.
So the defendants who were enjoying high tea at the speakeasy with the judiciary just last week get the justice they deserve.
Why would you think anything I've said would entail people found not guilty being punished?
oh wait it's in_limbo and Gringo cya
Doesn't mean they actually haven't done anything. Which is true, but what does that mean? You can't go on viewing someone with suspicion after the fact, at least if you're not directly involved with the case. There's nothing else they can do to prove they haven't done what they were charged with.
Thanks for letting me know
I think we really need to start looking seriously at anonymity for phone hacking defendants. Rebekah Brooks has had 8 months of her life taken away and her reputation destroyed even though she's not guilty
Cameron is blaming the civil service for not vetting Coulson (when it was him that ordered the process be by-passed), and, for some reason, the editor of the Guardian for making him hire Coulson in the first place.
Very, very shifty.
cameron personally hacked the phoens of hundreds
a man who conspired to hack the phones of a missing and murdered teenage girl and the families of the dead victims of the 7/7 bombers (and hundreds of others)
that man then went on to lie about it in court and to at least 2 Parliamentary inquiry committees
and not only that but in employing that man and placing him in a central Government role Cameron bypassed the standard vetting procedures
Cameron is criminally negligent
It's not outlandish to suspect the legal system of being influenced by that corruption
it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory
But since it's been proven that there are seriously morally deficient people at the top of the most influential structure in the country
I can see why some people think they might be using their influence to help their friends every once in a while.
*puts foil on head*
But it's the best input you've had into the debate
When is BoJo going to apologise for saying the whole phone hacking thing was nonsense cooked up by Labour & the left ?
and I've finally come to a firm decision on my feelings. If Rebekah Brooks was my cousin, I'd still bang her.
Although it did go a bit "moker" near the end
(still reading it...)
Very interesting. Sad that if you have lots of money you can use the legal system to pretty much get out of loads of shit. But this isn't a new concept.
Makes the smugness of Mensch et. al. just that little bit more galling. As if it wasn't galling enough already...
People are continuing to be really weird about it. Fraser Nelson earlier was talking about it as a victory for press freedom. Think it's fully exposed a grim self-serving cartel-and-closed-shop-esque attitude within certain sections of the press myself, whereby bad (and even illegal) practice is excused and thought little of. Protection of the press's right to batter their way into a) people's lives and b) the inner workings of government without a care for the impact this has on both lives and democracy.
It's been a grim week.
claiming that "pretty much everyone else was cleared of all charges," completely (or conveniently) forgetting that six other people had already admitted guilt, before the case came to court. So that's seven people guilty, out of 12 charged.
I don't think Liddle's ever made an intellectually consistent point on anything. Shame really. He's clearly a gifted writer - just an indisputable idiot.
Best to ignore it
Will Self's admirably balanced assessment of him (and his book) recently is very much worth reading: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/may/22/selfish-whining-monkeys-rod-liddle-review
I don't, obviously.
But he's toned down the verbosity over the last 5 years and now he's one of our very finest writers.
I struggle to see how you'd find this piece difficult to read - much of his earlier writing though, sure.
I don't see how it's linked? What they were accused of (and 7 of the 12 have plead guilty or been found guilty of) was an illegal activity. Where is the attack on a free press?
was largely that the press can do whatever the fuck they like (by way of freedom of the press), so long as it isn't criminal. This case has apparently shown that when the press do break the law that they are punished and, as a result, there is no need for any further press regulation. Think he actually explictly states that the press haven't acted `above the law` in any of this which... even he knows isn't true.
Here's an article (from a much more elegant source, it has to be said) which manages to make a similar point in a much, much better way: www.economist.com/news/britain/21606013-downfall-david-camerons-former-press-secretary-has-damaged-british-democracy-andy-coulsons?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/andycoulsonmalignlegacy
Saved for later
THEY will continue to do what they do.
Has this made us a) Free-er or b) Safer?
the answer being a big fat 'Meh'
Recently there was a Hullabaloo about THEM wanting to have a 'secret trial' the court of appeal said no, so now this will encourage them to think about totally secret trials/
I doubt if there will be any indictment of the US hackings and tappings.
THEY will still be able to monitor you should they chose to.
Things like Manchester Uni are getting involved in clamping down on 'the people'
Secret injunctions or secret secret injunctions where you cant know that you are breaking a court injunction :D
All this sort of stuff cannot be resolved in the favour of the peoples interest as any result and change will result in a gain for some other area of dodgeyness e.g.regulating the press by powers could result in supressing freedom of speech.
We are knacked, because democracy has no allowance for how to mix politics/legislation and elections and press/media/freedom of speech
I'll let Michael White fill in the rest here: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/25/why-feel-sorry-andy-coulson