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”

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.

It’s rumoured that Liverpool’s sponsor, this season, will be Colgate, and their mascot will be Dennis the Menace’s dog Gnasher.

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.

Being suspicious, by nature, I pressed “scan” first, to find that I’m not “an amazingly gullible person,” neither do I have fingerprints on my screen. I never have been able to fathom out the thought processes of those who find practical “jokes” funny.

You cant argue or debate with Snafu- he is always right and everyone who objects is wrong.

It’s taken you lot long enough to work that one out.

I did wonder why I’d never seen any mention of those “orders” in the files in the National Archives.