What is there to discuss? Nothing. Period.

Well, you could try discussing the story…

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…

Lunchtime!!!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]229628[/ATTACH]

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.

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.