Jump to content

Rebekah Brooks cleared, Andy Coulson found guilty........


Recommended Posts

Mac - he lived practically across the road from me. I'd often see the slimy fecker and the other "gentlemen" of the press camped outside his front door. His house may have gone up for sale two years ago when the case first came to court but I think I can remember quite clearly when the removal vans arrived.
That certainly seems to be the view. Although getting a jury to find the desired verdict can't always be guaranteed, finding a prosecutor and/or witnesses that play ball definitely can be done. Like most people I'm astounded that both Mr and Mrs Brooks were found not guilty. There's no way you can be that high up in a newspaper and not know how stories are being sought and found. I'd totally understand if Coulson feels like the hog roast!
Yes, he seems to have been made the scapegoat because he lied to David Cameron about his involvement in phone hacking when he hired him. Obviously, he's guilty as hell but I fail to see how Rebecca Brooks couldn't have possibly known about what was going on at the paper. She was shagging Coulsen at the time and they worked together very closely. She must have known.

I can't get excited about the whole phone-hacking palaver anyway. Most people (the cops included) didn't think phone hacking was a crime at all, and there are lots of other perfectly legal ways of getting hold of people's private information and splashing it all over the front pages. Even the payoffs for coppers etc. in return for stories are hardly big news - it's been around for ever, and whilst it's definitely not legal I wouldn't class it alongside proper corruption in terms of seriousness.


The Brooks trial was great entertainment (including for the lawyers involved, with the added satisfaction for them of being paid handsomely) but it was never actually important.

Phonehacking blew up because of the Dowler case, full stop.


Would the majority of the public have been up in arms about listening to to the intimate affairs of Boris Johnson, Heather Mills, Prezza, Gazza or The Royals? Would they bollocks! Half the population pay to lap that shit up every day!

So many of the general public have a perverse sense of right and wrong.


One day cackling over Gazza having fallen off the wagon again; the next day 'outraged' at the source of the information.



Does the addict not share some responsibility - along with the dealer?

I was reading the Independent at lunchtime and they said that just about all of the hacking incidences presented at the trial occurred under Coulson's watch. The one exception that was under Brookes' editorial reign, she was conveniently away on holiday at the time.


Make of that what you will.

"Doesn't make it right though."


Obviously. And as it turns out some of it was actually criminal, but still hardly crime of the century. Re Millie Dowler, it was the hacking equivalent of doorstepping the family of a murder victim, which still goes on of course. The point being that it is not the illegality that matters, but the lack of respect/decency. And that's where the hypocrisy comes in - many consumers don't really care about decency or respect in journalism where the victims are unsymapthetic and they want to read the stories.

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Doesn't make it right though.


Didn't you used to work for a red-top? At any point did you get wind that the paper would go to illegal efforts to get stories? Phone-hacking or anything else? Because anyone I've spoken reckons it's rife and you'd have to live under a rock to not be aware of dodgy goings on.


Yet people still work there and people still buy it.


People suck. *Bob* is spot on with the hypocrisy on the part of most of the public - they want to devour endless celeb-driven drivel yet cry foul when they find out about poor Hugh Grant's phone being hacked. It's as much push from consumers for this dirge that drives the media to ever desperate lengths.


Anyone complaining about this looks at that Daily Mail website sidebar of shame? You're partly to blame for all this. Stop looking at pictures of Kardashians and read a book.

They did.


But the point remains. For many - whether they deserved to get the full weight of the law thrown at them hinged upon whether there was sympathy for the victim (or mostly one victim in particular in this case) - not on a point of law or 'right' and 'wrong'.


If the victims had just been Max Clifford, Heather Mills and George Galloway a ?100m trial would not have been on the cards.


Great to see some unlikeable people squirm in court, but there's a slightly grotty level of schadenfreude, hypocrisy and double standards in play which clearly hasn't occurred to Mr & Mrs Bloke in Street - who've happily spent the last ten years tittering over a picture of Sienna Miller's tits as photographed through a long lens.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Because they have been awful - scoring own-goal after own-goal. You cannot be an apologist for their diabolical first 100 days on the basis that the previous lot were worse - in the same way the whole of the 14 years of Tory rule was tarred with the brush of despair about their very worst behaviour in the latter years Labour run the risk of their government being tarred with the same brush on the basis of their first 100 days. It has probably been some of the worst 100 days of any new government and Starmer's approval ratings aren't as low as they are without reason. You know they are in trouble when MPs start posting the good bits from their first 100 days - it's a sure sign they know they have a problem. And when this government have a problem the frontbenchers disappear from media interviews and they roll-out the likes of Pat McFadden to provide some air cover. Yesterday it was farmers. Today it is the pensioners being pushed into poverty by Winter Fuel payments. It's a perceptual disaster and has been since day 1 - they have to get a grip on it else this leadership team is doomed. You highlight the very problem here. Farmers are not being gifted money. They are being gifted assets. Assets that they don't realise as they continue to work those assets to provide food for the country. Most inheritance is cash or an asset (a house) that people sell to generate cash. Passing a farm to younger family members is very different. On the news they interviewed a farmer whose family had owned the farm since 1822 and he broke down in tears when he spoke about his 13 year old son who was working in the farm to continue it - no doubt in the realisation that his son would be hit by a tax bill when he took it over. Given farmers are not cash rich then the decision would likely be that they would need to sell some of the land that generations had worked hard to build to fund the tax bill - and so many farms are on a knife's edge that it might be enough to send them over the edge.   There are many valid reasons why the government are doing what they are doing but those reasons are not cutting through and they are losing control of the narrative. That is a massive issue for them.  
    • Another great job by Simmonds Plastering. This time he decorated the newly plastered living room and added a pantry cupboard in kitchen.  He is reliable and works really hard.  Highly recommend 07949 180 533
    • Because land has been exempt from inheritance tax wealthy individuals (like Clarkson and Dyson) have used it as a tax avoidance measure. Clarkson is on the record stating that he bought land for precisely this purpose. It is people like him who farmers should be angry with, if anyone, because they have exploited a loophole, which is now being (partially) closed. Yes, I do grasp the concept of inheritance - it's were one is given money, or valuable assets by chance of birth (having done nothing to earn it). As money you have earned, is taxed, it seems odd that money you have not, shouldn't be. I assume you don't disapprove of income tax? Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should? Everyone has to pay inheritance tax over a certain threshold. In my opinion, if you are fortunate enough to be gifted any amount of money (whether cash, or a valuable asset), to quibble about paying some tax on some of it, seems rather entitled. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part of it that is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate. 
    • Ah yes, good spot! Thanks for the link. It sounds like they are planning a licensed restaurant with a small bar from reading through the application. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...