Hacking – Brooks cleared, Coulson guilty

It’s ok to have an opinion different from the jury and at the same time respect the verdict of the Court because thankfully you have to provide sufficient evidence in order to convict someone.

The reason why Coulson’s boss and former lover got off is that Newscorp deleted millions of emails….nothing to look at …no trail!

So while there was circumstantial evidence there was not direct evidence linking Brooks.

One can think that Brooks as the boss knew about payments (because as the boss she had to sanction them and the boss knows where company money goes) and it also seems unbelievable that her former lover, close friend and underling did not tell her what was going on in the company she was running and closely supervising….but in the end we have to respect the court verdict because it did not find sufficient evidence to convict her and perhaps unlucky for her subordinate that he was found guilty.

On a separate matter, newspapers have an important role in uncovering wrong doing within the law in the public interest (as Woodwood and Bernstein did in uncovering the Watergate cover up) and any steps to have French style protection for “celebrities” over here will hopefully be avoided here.

It can’t be right that some people use the media when it suits them and then, having the money, can place expensive gagging orders to stop the world finding out when they’ve done something wrong (remember Robert Maxwell stole £400m from the Mirror pension fund and he would sue at a drop of a hat any one who questioned him courtesy of Sue, Grabitt and Runne ; -))

Just to keep it all together…

Former News of the World editor Andy Coulson has been jailed for 18 months for conspiracy to hack phones.

The 46-year-old, who went on to become director of communications for Prime Minister David Cameron, was found guilty at the Old Bailey last week.

He was one of four ex-journalists at the tabloid to be sentenced, along with private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.

Five defendants, including former News International chief Rebekah Brooks, were cleared of all charges last week.

The sentences, all for conspiracy to unlawfully intercept communications, were:

• Coulson, 46, of Canterbury – 18 months
• Former chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck, 52, of Esher, Surrey – six months
• Former news editor Greg Miskiw, 64, of Leeds – six months
• Former reporter James Weatherup, 58, of Brentwood, Essex – four-month suspended sentence
• Private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, 43, of Sutton, Surrey – six-month suspended sentence
• Mulcaire – who faced four counts – and Weatherup also received 200 hours of community service.

Coulson was being taken to Belmarsh Prison in south-east London when he left the Old Bailey, the BBC understands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28160626

What about this accusation ?? ; )

Brooks gave the Payne’s a mobile phone – good PR at the time and, of course, might make it easier to subsequently claim that hacking your own phone isn’t illegal. (Maybe that’s why she got off…;o)

Andy Coulson did not know the phone hacking going while he was News of the World editor was illegal and this fact should mitigate the sentence he faces, his lawyer has told the Old Bailey.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28113508

Firstly, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Secondly… Doesn’t Squidgygate/Camillagate mean anything to newspaper people anymore? When Prince Charles, Princess Diana and their talkative playmates had their phone calls published it was generally underlined that to intercept phone calls is illegal.
Thirdly, Coulson knew that paying police officers was illegal (which, admittedly, was more than Brooks did) yet seemed to have missed out that breaking and entering someones phone without their knowledge would be just as criminal?

Methinks the lawyer doth protest to much.

Mr Brooks, your summation is not what has been expressed at all. However it does suggest you have a propensity for reading and believing such terrible rags as those produced by the creatures you mention in your inaccurate description of others positions.

Ah, yet another amateur psychologist; unfortunately for your “summation,” I gave up reading newspapers about 40 years ago.
In your resume of Brooks’s relationship with Coulson, you have (conveniently?) omitted “lover,” and, as some of us know (and can even speak from first-hand experience,) “Love is blind.”

Perhaps you should take notice of your own item at the bottom of your input:-
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts”

In the vein of your comments to the other Snafu, Mr Hunt Sir, you are a raging hypocrite. (Like the vast majority of the population.)
In this land of free expression anybody is entirely entitled to express a contary opinion and position. As i have previously stated and as snafu has also pointed out it seems rather strange that one of the accused is found guilty yet his immediate boss, friend, confidente and apparenty highly skilled manager is found to have zero knowledge of the same events for which he was convicted.
Mis-carriages of justice have been know to occur and not necessary in favour of the good guys.
As you and others, including myself have pointed out, we were not there so it is impossible to know the reasons for such a conclusion, however to express an opinion that it seems strange is hardly cause for the attacks you and Edgar have launched upon my namesake.

Mr Brooks, your summation is not what has been expressed at all. However it does suggest you have a propensity for reading and believing such terrible rags as those produced by the creatures you mention in your inaccurate description of others positions.

Well, you could try discussing the story…

Once upon a time, there was a group of people (called the Crown Prosecution Service,) who thought that a Murdoch employee was the equivalent of the Wicked Witch of the West, and set out to prove it. Over many weeks and months, they set out their case, in front of 12 randomly-chosen members of the public (who were presumably aware that the defendant has to be presumed innocent, until found guilty,) but signally failed to persuade said 12 persons that their evidence was sufficiently strong to secure a conviction, hence the “Not Guilty” verdict(s.)
Cue outsiders, who weren’t always there, who didn’t hear all of the evidence, and who didn’t have the opportunity to study the demeanour of the defendant(s) throughout the trial, who seem to feel that they’re better qualified than the 12 jurors, and thus can produce a contradictory verdict.

What is there to discuss? Nothing. Period.

Well, you could try discussing the story…

THE News of the World hacked a phone belonging to Sarah Payne’s mother – which was given to her by then editor Rebekah Brooks, it was claimed yesterday.

What about this accusation ?? ; )

a decision was reached by the jury. It is not up for discussion. The fact that you are arrogant enough to disagree and are “disappointed” with it, is wholly irrelevant because only those party to ALL the minutiae of the evidence are capable of coming to a decision.

What is there to discuss? Nothing. Period.

Finis!

Charlie – we can discuss what we like … it is the verdict that is irrelevant in this case !

For the very last time – because I really do have much more worthwhile things to do – a decision was reached by the jury. It is not up for discussion. The fact that you are arrogant enough to disagree and are “disappointed” with it, is wholly irrelevant because only those party to ALL the minutiae of the evidence are capable of coming to a decision.

What is there to discuss? Nothing. Period.

Finis!

I am not debating with the jury – I am discussing (or trying to, but obviously not with you since you are aiming at me, not the thread) on a discussion forum. I have posed a thread, opening a subject to discuss with; you have decided that you do not wish to discuss the subject but my opinion, my view. You have not chosen to oppose my view with facts or even opinion but with the unusual concept that because I was not on the jury there is nothing to discuss.
No, I don’t get your basic point; the jury came to their conclusion and I came to mine – and you appear to have come to yours based on the fact that I was not on the jury, hence your rant about no discussion to be had rather than whether you felt there was a guilty or not guilty verdict to be had, or even if you care.

Meanwhile you invite me to pose another thread. Why? So that you can ask why anyone should reply because we have no reason to post having no connect to it?
Post a thread, Charlie, and quit dragging other threads off topic – that is my job…

You just don’t get the basic point do you, Snafu. The jury reached a verdict which you do not like. There is no debate. You’ll just have to live with it however much it riles you – or to be accurate – disappoints you.

What on earth exchanges of view on the merits of Ferraris sold at auction have to do with it I have no idea at all……no one is disputing the amount they fetched. Or are they…..??

I might take you up on your offer, although there are quite a few to my name here already. – but you go first. It would be a change from lengthy quotations on something which caught your fancy!

No, Charlie. I did not participate in the trial. I did not hear and/or see everything the jury was shown. The conclusion I reached was mine based on the evidence I saw, heard, read, etc, but as I have said all along… this is a discussion forum, and if we can only discuss things that we have witnessed in the flesh then that leaves very little for discussion wouldn’t you say? But no, you don’t care; you just post threads about things you didn’t attend yourself (the Ferrari auction at Goodwood – were you there? I wasn’t, but I was there last year for Fangio’s £20m Merc.) whilst telling me I cannot express an opinion.

What have you witnessed recently, Charlie? Start a thread, please?

You did not participate in the trial, and you did not hear and/or see everything the jurors did. I cannot express it more succinctly. The conclusions you reached under those circumstances are irrelevant.

If your personal feelings are not a factor why are you disappointed?

The fact that you have done jury service in the past, as have I, is also irrelevant.

If I did not hear/read all the evidence then I am quite sure I heard more than yourself, having sought it out via the official sources.
From what I saw/heard/read I made my reports as required; my own feelings did not enter into it, I reported what I saw/heard/read.
When the jury retired I made a report covering all angles, showing what the outcome would be should this or that happen. It was at that point that I believe I first came to a typed up conclusion that found both parties guilty, although it was not something I put any stress upon (a good sub editor would go through checking for such inconsistencies anyway) as I gave the pro’s and con’s for the main points of the trial. I believe I’ve mentioned most – if not all – of these points already, but the gist of my feeling is that she is not the efficient woman she has been painted as if she was as unaware of what had happened as she claims. And the fact that she had, in the past, happily admitted that her reporters broke the law (payments to police officers) showed that she was not as efficient or as knowledgeable (even if only at that point; damned sure she educated herself immediately afterwards!) as we have been lead to believe.

And yes, I have served on a jury.

In the first post you wrote “Heard the evidence, decided they were both guilty; bit disappointed now.”

By your own admission you made three visits to the court and no doubt followed the trial to a greater or lesser extent in the media over the last 8 months. And that was enough for you to disagree with the jury’s verdict on one of the defendants.

My “assault”, to use your word, was on the sheer arrogance of your comment. And nothing I have seen subsequently leads me to take back my criticism, for three reasons.

1. You did not hear all the evidence.

2. Having not heard it you were able to decide that the party found not guilty was in fact guilty.

3. You express disappointment from which we can only infer that you must have been biased in favour of guilty verdicts before the case was heard. We can only be relieved that you were not on the jury.

What he is saying (which is not utter rubbish) is that, as we were not at the trial (so did not hear all the testimonies) we have no right to challenge the verdict.

Who said anything about challenging the verdict? The impression I had (my view) from my three visits did not show her in a good light, and there have been one or two very quiet ‘mumbles’ about what could the jury have seen that was not made public (which was nothing, obviously, but there have been few – if any – stories in the press disagreeing with the finding because the press is watching over its own. Emails are not as public and have been winging around filling up inboxes like mad). Charlie’s view was that he couldn’t comment because he hadn’t attended the trial or served on the jury and that no one else could/should comment unless they had done so (post 13). Your view is…unknown because you decided to attack me instead – if it wasn’t for the nature of this forum one might wonder about certain members deliberately dragging threads off topic to make comments about the thread starter instead…

we’ve been told, ad nauseam, about your superior intellect

You can thank Mr Green for that. I would very much doubt anyone believes it, I know I don’t, but if it helps you to demonise the opposition then by all means carry on…

but to put yourself above all 12 jurors (who were there) takes arrogance to a new level.

Yep. Happens every time the verdict goes against your personal view. Have a look around – there must have been several similar threads so far this year.

We do though have a right to think that the Brooks woman must be fairly competent as a manager to have reached the exalted heights she did (I doubt she would have got there by horizontal jogging unless there were a lot of partially sighted people on the board of News International).

She claims to have studied at the Sorbonne (University of Paris, for the unknowing) in her entry in Who’s Who, something never mentioned in her Murdoch-issued biographies and a wonderful achievement for the daughter of a deckhand on a tugboat. But she started at the NotW as a secretary, so I’d guess she would have got some managerial skills en route from Paris.

The farce with the laptops in the underground basement was explained away with a pretty incredible story about Charlie’s porn watching habits. Though I can believe those were genuine – I mean you would, wouldn’t you?

Tell you what, you write a script along those lines and see if you could actually give it away, let alone sell it…;o)

“Greg McGill, a senior lawyer with the CPS, said the decision to mount such a massive operation was in part intended to “explore a culture of invading privacy”. He added: “This case was not about whether phone hacking took place or whether public officials were paid for information; there are a significant number of recent convictions which show that both did happen.”

If the CPS had stuck to what it is supposed to do – to establish that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution, rather than exploring cultures – perhaps Mrs Brooks might not have gone to court.

So there shouldn’t have been a case involving Brooks or Coulson? Remember, whilst one was found not guilty the other was and awaits sentencing so what – in your view, unless you believe he shouldn’t have been prosecuted either – would have differentiated between the two?
Yes – hacking has been found to have taken place (under the editorships of both of them). Privacy was invaded, what was not intended for publication was publicised.
Yes – officials have been found to have been paid by newspapers for information (under the editorships of both of them). Again, privacy was not maintained but became public.
Yes – it has been established that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution: QED Coulson. But since the Milly Dowler phone hacking case it has to be inconceivable that the editor of a newspaper would not know or understand how her own reporters came by such, for example, personal messages left by the girls parents – if you opened tomorrows newspaper to find personal text or answer phone messages splashed across the front page wouldn’t you wonder how they were obtained and wonder about their legality? You might but, according to Brooks and the jury, it doesn’t matter.
In addition Rebekah Brooks was questioned by the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee of the House of Commons in 2003, telling MP Chris Bryant that information had been paid for in the past when asked if newspapers had ever been involved in ‘improper acts’, admitting that police officers had been given money for stories. Coulson butted in and claimed that the payments had been made lawfully, even though it is completely unlawful to pay a police officer for any reason. Brooks was summoned to the committee three more times so that more questions could be asked, but failed to attend; the idea that a warrant be issued forcing her to attend was given some thought but, after Chris Bryant was repeatedly ridiculed by The Sun, including publishing a picture of him in his underwear from a gay dating website, the idea was dropped because it was believed that The Sun might decide to investigate the private lives of the committee members… One might wonder how that might be achieved without a little hacking? ;o)

And Charlie? I am not a know all, I would never claim to know everything – it would take the fun out of life. But there is a difference between a know all and a know nothing, especially on a discussion forum when (for example) the first reply is an assault on the threads starter more than a reply to the thread.

Thanks Edgar, you saved me the trouble of making the obvious point to our self appointed know-all.

I would also add this comment from a senior layer with the CPS.

“Greg McGill, a senior lawyer with the CPS, said the decision to mount such a massive operation was in part intended to “explore a culture of invading privacy”. He added: “This case was not about whether phone hacking took place or whether public officials were paid for information; there are a significant number of recent convictions which show that both did happen.”

If the CPS had stuck to what it is supposed to do – to establish that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution, rather than exploring cultures – perhaps Mrs Brooks might not have gone to court.

We do though have a right to think that the Brooks woman must be fairly competent as a manager to have reached the exalted heights she did (I doubt she would have got there by horizontal jogging unless there were a lot of partially sighted people on the board of News International).

That being the case it is pretty inconceivable that a person of that capability in the role she occupied wouldn’t have known what was happening, and by not taking action, gave it tacit approval.

The farce with the laptops in the underground basement was explained away with a pretty incredible story about Charlie’s porn watching habits. Though I can believe those were genuine – I mean you would, wouldn’t you?

Moggy

Well, thats the whole, entire forum scrubbed then – we weren’t there, we have no reason to talk about it. Charlie, please stop talking utter rubbish…

What he is saying (which is not utter rubbish) is that, as we were not at the trial (so did not hear all the testimonies) we have no right to challenge the verdict.
Given your admitted prejudices, concerning some defendants “guilt,” it’s just as well you were not on the jury; we’ve been told, ad nauseam, about your superior intellect, but to put yourself above all 12 jurors (who were there) takes arrogance to a new level.