interestrateripoff Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Breaking News: London court told ex-journalists from Murdoch tabloid, Thurlbeck, Weatherup and Miskiw, have pleaded guilty to phone-hacking charges Just seen this flash up on reuters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted October 30, 2013 Author Share Posted October 30, 2013 Former News of the World journalists Neville Thurlbeck, Greg Miskiw and James Weatherup and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire have pleaded guilty to phone-hacking charges, court hears. More details soon … Guardian running this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 No doubt now singing like Canaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Were these 3 on trial with Brooks and Coulson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted October 31, 2013 Author Share Posted October 31, 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/31/rebekah-brooks-andy-coulson-affair Phone hacking jury told Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson had six-year affair And now said in open court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 http://www.theguardi...-coulson-affair And now said in open court. live by media die by media. can`t really see these two avoiding some kind of jail time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/31/rebekah-brooks-andy-coulson-affair And now said in open court. I'm no fan of Brooks or the Murdoch gang but it is pretty damn disgraceful that the prosecution would bring this up - looks downright malicious. I wonder was the threat of public embarrassment and the impact on their private lives used to try to coerce them during the investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Just seen this flash up on reuters. small fry. next step is to get the entire board of directors in court for criminal activity( illegal interception of communications) ...AND JAIL THEM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 small fry. next step is to get the entire board of directors in court for criminal activity( illegal interception of communications) ...AND JAIL THEM. It's always easier to court martial some captains, rather than the Duke of Wellington. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I'm no fan of Brooks or the Murdoch gang but it is pretty damn disgraceful that the prosecution would bring this up - looks downright malicious. I wonder was the threat of public embarrassment and the impact on their private lives used to try to coerce them during the investigation? I don't think the prosecution are muck raking or trying to make a moral point. What they are trying to establish is that Coulson and Brooks were quite literally 'in bed with each other' making it harder for the defendants to claim that each party did not know what the other was up to. Given that 3 of the accused have already copped a plea of guilty then ignorance is really the only defence left to the rest of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I don't think the prosecution are muck raking or trying to make a moral point. What they are trying to establish is that Coulson and Brooks were quite literally 'in bed with each other' making it harder for the defendants to claim that each party did not know what the other was up to. Given that 3 of the accused have already copped a plea of guilty then ignorance is really the only defence left to the rest of them. Yes, it seems an entirely relevant disclosure, which if ignored would leave all sorts of questions depending on the verdict. Especially since the revelation has been in the public domain for many months now, just not in newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 I don't think the prosecution are muck raking or trying to make a moral point. What they are trying to establish is that Coulson and Brooks were quite literally 'in bed with each other' making it harder for the defendants to claim that each party did not know what the other was up to. Given that 3 of the accused have already copped a plea of guilty then ignorance is really the only defence left to the rest of them. But if they where having a "secret" affair and keeping it secret from their partners isn't it also likely they may have kept secrets from each other as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I don't think the prosecution are muck raking or trying to make a moral point. What they are trying to establish is that Coulson and Brooks were quite literally 'in bed with each other' making it harder for the defendants to claim that each party did not know what the other was up to. Given that 3 of the accused have already copped a plea of guilty then ignorance is really the only defence left to the rest of them. And ignorance of a law is no excuse in the eyes of the law. I can remember being 7 or 8 and answering a question in an English Language test about why it was illegal to offer a Police Officer any kind of gift as such gifts could be construed as bribes. I look forward to hearing how adults in the position of running national newspapers explain their actions with regards to alleged payments to Police Officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 But if they where having a "secret" affair and keeping it secret from their partners isn't it also likely they may have kept secrets from each other as well? That will be up to the jury to decide. Something they would not have been able to do if the affair had been kept secret from the court. The judge clearly regards it as admissible evidence . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 And ignorance of a law is no excuse in the eyes of the law. Agreed ignorance of the law is no excuse but ignorance in terms of not knowing about law breaking being carried out by others is a defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Jib Fingers Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Not really up on this whole phone hacking affair. How come only the Murdoch staff are in the dock after it was shown a load of papers not owned by him were doing it just as much? I seem to recall the Daily Mirror being the worst offender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dances with sheeple Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I'm no fan of Brooks or the Murdoch gang but it is pretty damn disgraceful that the prosecution would bring this up - looks downright malicious. I wonder was the threat of public embarrassment and the impact on their private lives used to try to coerce them during the investigation? It is the sort of stuff their "news" papers would have loved to splash about, so who cares? I find it quite funny actually, I think the penny has dropped for Brooks that she is now caught on the other side of the wiretap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 That will be up to the jury to decide. Something they would not have been able to do if the affair had been kept secret from the court. The judge clearly regards it as admissible evidence . Yep the judge seems happy to allow it. I do wonder what other personal gems will come out in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rave Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Not really up on this whole phone hacking affair. How come only the Murdoch staff are in the dock after it was shown a load of papers not owned by him were doing it just as much? I seem to recall the Daily Mirror being the worst offender. +1. When's Moron going to see the inside of a courtroom? It is the sort of stuff their "news" papers would have loved to splash about, so who cares? I find it quite funny actually, I think the penny has dropped for Brooks that she is now caught on the other side of the wiretap. Yeah, schadenfreude is funny, but at the end of the day...two wrongs don't make a right. Both Brookes and Coulson had/have partners who arguably don't need, and probably don't (I'm thinking Coulson's missus here, not that I know anything about her) deserve to be hurt. If I were a juror I'd be tempted to ****** the CPS barrister off just for that- the little turd. Yep the judge seems happy to allow it. And? Loads of judges are demonstrably stupid and/or awful people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Someone changed Brooks' wiki page. See blue text. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebekah_Brooks&diff=579619032&oldid=579617977 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Someone changed Brooks' wiki page. See blue text. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rebekah_Brooks&diff=579619032&oldid=579617977 Before it goes: Personal life Brooks became engaged to actor Ross Kemp (best known for portraying volatile hardman Grant Mitchell in EastEnders) in 1996, and married him in June 2002 in Las Vegas.[49] On 3 November 2005, it was reported that Brooks had been arrested following an alleged assault on her husband. She was later released without charge and the police took no further action.[49] The Sun had been running a campaign against domestic violence at the time.[29][67] The couple had spent the previous evening in the company of the former Cabinet Minister David Blunkett, who had resigned for the second time on that day.[68] Private Eye and The Independent[69] reported that the couple had separated; this was not widely reported in the remainder of the British press. 7 March 2008 issue of Private Eye refers to her "paramour", former racehorse trainer and author Charlie Brooks. The Guardian reported on 5 June 2009, that she would marry Brooks.[70] The Independent reported that Brooks and her fiancé had married in a lakeside ceremony in June 2009.[71] The couple are key members of the Chipping Norton set, and live in Churchill, Oxfordshire, and London.[72] In July 2011, MP Chris Bryant claimed that Brooks had previously implied that he would loiter in a London park because he was homosexual,[73] and that Kemp had responded, "Shut up, you homophobic cow."[73] It was announced by Bell Pottinger that Rebekah and Charlie Brooks were expecting a daughter in early 2012 via a surrogate mother.[74] Scarlett Anne Mary Brooks was born at the private Portland Hospital in London on 25 January 2012.[75] During the Phone Hacking trial on 31st October 2013, it was reported that Brooks and Andy Coulson had an affair that lasted from 1998 to 2004. Hopefully, her partner at the time, Ross Kemp, kicks the living ****** out of that weasel Coulson and publicly cites Brooks as being a dirty slag. [76] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Before it goes: Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 +1. When's Moron going to see the inside of a courtroom? Yeah, schadenfreude is funny, but at the end of the day...two wrongs don't make a right. Both Brookes and Coulson had/have partners who arguably don't need, and probably don't (I'm thinking Coulson's missus here, not that I know anything about her) deserve to be hurt. If I were a juror I'd be tempted to ****** the CPS barrister off just for that- the little turd. And? Loads of judges are demonstrably stupid and/or awful people. Their affair is very relevant to this case, as pointed out earlier in this thread. Also, if either of them REALLY didn't want to hurt their partners, then why did they both have affairs, even through during the time each got married? They only have themselves to blame, certainly not the CPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 I'm no fan of Brooks or the Murdoch gang but it is pretty damn disgraceful that the prosecution would bring this up - looks downright malicious. Brooks must be amazing in bed. That's the only conclusion I can arrive at to explain this entire story. I do think it's a bit unfair that trying to bribe public officials should be considered a serious criminal offence. Now, them accepting said bribes, is a different matter entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Lol I'll bet David Blunkett could quite honestly say, I never saw anything!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.