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 ; -))