YEEHAH, the Redhead is goin' down!

Tefal said:
no they are innocent.

you cannot punish a person for something you cant prove, it's an insane concept that ruins any sense of justice.
Click to expand...

careful tefal. you are bringing rational argument into a bandwagon thread in GD of all places
 
Brooks is legally innocent but she looks bad either way. Either she did know about the hacking which is bad, or she didn't in which case she is guilty of incompetence.
 
AGD said:
Brooks is legally innocent but she looks bad either way. Either she did know about the hacking which is bad, or she didn't in which case she is guilty of incompetence.
Click to expand...

Generally incompetence isn't a criminal offence though.
 
ElliorR said:
Though I do like the idea of removing juries and leaving all this to judges who, one would like to believe, would be dispassionate (or more likely totally out of touch with some parts of our media who'll only be happy when they can try people in their papers).
Click to expand...

I too would like to see such a system used on Brooks and her ilk, but only if the judge's name is Dredd. :D
 
And with one bound Wade/Brooks is free. At least Coulson has been found guilty . . . I wonder whether he will eventually shop his fellow conspirators . . . perhaps in a forthcoming book even if not to avoid further prosecution?

Despite getting a damned good kicking by the trial judge for contempt, Cameron is being VERY cautious about disclosing the advice he was / was not given - I wonder why? ;)

As expected, Leveson's recommendations will be quietly swept under the carpet :(
 
"Murdoch’s Trouble Has Only Just Begun"

It can now be reported that the FBI has copies of at least 80,000 emails taken from the servers at News Corp in New York. These messages, including those sent up the chain of command by Brooks, were not part of the mass deletion that was ordered in London when it became clear that police officers were soon going to be searching for evidence of a vast criminal conspiracy.

The FBI emails, on a single disk, were shared with investigators in London, but their existence was disclosed to the judge until late in the phone hacking trial and they were ultimately not entered into evidence and therefore could not be reported until the jury had reached its verdicts.
Click to expand...

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/murdoch-trouble-only-just-begun-005500341--politics.html#KkKl4ty
 
Last edited:
Indeed, and he still has the other charge to deal with. What about the FBI emails? What can they do with them legally? Don't they want to talk to Murdoch?
 
Roll Up, roll up!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...gned-off-all-payments-court-told-9842395.html

The police chief in charge of one of Scotland Yard’s largest investigations, into alleged corrupt payments to public officials by Sun journalists, has claimed not to have seen an internal email stating all cash payments had to be approved by Rebekah Brooks.

Detective Superintendent Mark Kandiah was asked at Kingston Crown Court yesterday about an email dated April 2006 sent to senior executives by the newspaper’s managing editor, Graham Dudman, which stated: “With immediate effect, no cash payments to be made without Rebekah’s approval.”

The jury at the trial of six Sun journalists accused of paying public officials for confidential information was told by lawyers for Mr Dudman that the email had “literally surfaced in the last week”. Oliver Blunt QC asked: “I imagine you haven’t seen it?” Mr Kandiah, recently retired from the Met, replied: “No.”
Click to expand...

So, if she signed everything off.................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom