Breaking News 3 Ex Journalists Plead Guilty To Phone Hacking

[dances with sheeple]

+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.

Well it`s not two wrongs, it is one wrong (in your opinion) versus many many years of wrongs by the likes of this pair of clowns. How many kids, partners, parents have had to endure malicious shite printed about their loved ones due to these two idiots and their bosses and underlings?

Just re-read your post, are you saying that these two should somehow be let off?

[Rave]

Just re-read your post, are you saying that these two should somehow be let off?

Not if they've broken the law, no. And I suppose I'd be quite pleased to see a conviction on the basis that it would prove that our existing laws are fit for purpose, and thus that any new press laws are unnecessary and completely incompatible with a liberal democracy.

However I don't see it as a particularly serious offence. I've seen lots of cases in the last couple of years of people getting a suspended sentence for quite nasty physical assaults (for example), so I don't see why this lot should ever see the inside of a prison- at taxpayer's expense, let's not forget. The met have apparently spent 40 million on this witch hunt, and yet when my car got pinched they did sod all. I suspect that if you asked a representative cross section of Londoners, rather than the Guardianista/Hacked Off set, they might share my opinions about effective use of the police budget.

[Rave]

Their affair is very relevant to this case, as pointed out earlier in this thread.

If it's relevant, it's only to suggest that if one is guilty of the crimes they're on trial for, the other must have known about it. Bit of a leap IMO to convict someone on the basis of a- possibly never sent- love letter. I'd hope that the CPS had better evidence than that against both of them.

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.

So what part of the bit when I referred to the partners was so hard to understand? I've just re-read my previous post and it's not badly written. I can't speak about the motivations of people who cheat on their partners 'cos I've never done it, but I daresay most of them don't do it out of an active desire to hurt them?

So what we have here is the unedifying spectacle of the state prying into a woman's personal computer and then splashing what they found all over open court.

Yes, that woman was (allegedly) responsible for infringing other people's privacy and splashing them on the front cover of newspapers. But I say again: Two wrongs don't make a right. The prosecution's tactics in this case leave an incredibly ******ing sour taste in my mouth- and I pay their wages as a taxpayer. I can't remember signing up for that.

Either infringing people's privacy is wrong, or not. MAKE YOUR MIND UP.

[SHERWICK]

If it's relevant, it's only to suggest that if one is guilty of the crimes they're on trial for, the other must have known about it. Bit of a leap IMO to convict someone on the basis of a- possibly never sent- love letter. I'd hope that the CPS had better evidence than that against both of them.

So what part of the bit when I referred to the partners was so hard to understand? I've just re-read my previous post and it's not badly written. I can't speak about the motivations of people who cheat on their partners 'cos I've never done it, but I daresay most of them don't do it out of an active desire to hurt them?

So what we have here is the unedifying spectacle of the state prying into a woman's personal computer and then splashing what they found all over open court.

Yes, that woman was (allegedly) responsible for infringing other people's privacy and splashing them on the front cover of newspapers. But I say again: Two wrongs don't make a right. The prosecution's tactics in this case leave an incredibly ******ing sour taste in my mouth- and I pay their wages as a taxpayer. I can't remember signing up for that.

Either infringing people's privacy is wrong, or not. MAKE YOUR MIND UP.

The police are investigating a crime so of course they looked at her computer. On the other hand, why did brookes hack emails, phones and computers?

To conflate the two issues is an astounding leap by you.

There is absolutely no f*cking sour taste in my mouth with what's happening to them, quite the contrary, and I am right of centre and never read the guardian.

[SHERWICK]

If it's relevant, it's only to suggest that if one is guilty of the crimes they're on trial for, the other must have known about it. Bit of a leap IMO to convict someone on the basis of a- possibly never sent- love letter. I'd hope that the CPS had better evidence than that against both of them.

So what part of the bit when I referred to the partners was so hard to understand? I've just re-read my previous post and it's not badly written. I can't speak about the motivations of people who cheat on their partners 'cos I've never done it, but I daresay most of them don't do it out of an active desire to hurt them?

So what we have here is the unedifying spectacle of the state prying into a woman's personal computer and then splashing what they found all over open court.

Yes, that woman was (allegedly) responsible for infringing other people's privacy and splashing them on the front cover of newspapers. But I say again: Two wrongs don't make a right. The prosecution's tactics in this case leave an incredibly ******ing sour taste in my mouth- and I pay their wages as a taxpayer. I can't remember signing up for that.

Either infringing people's privacy is wrong, or not. MAKE YOUR MIND UP.

Read and answer stormymonday's post yesterday at 02.59.

[dances with sheeple]

If it's relevant, it's only to suggest that if one is guilty of the crimes they're on trial for, the other must have known about it. Bit of a leap IMO to convict someone on the basis of a- possibly never sent- love letter. I'd hope that the CPS had better evidence than that against both of them.

So what part of the bit when I referred to the partners was so hard to understand? I've just re-read my previous post and it's not badly written. I can't speak about the motivations of people who cheat on their partners 'cos I've never done it, but I daresay most of them don't do it out of an active desire to hurt them?

So what we have here is the unedifying spectacle of the state prying into a woman's personal computer and then splashing what they found all over open court.

Yes, that woman was (allegedly) responsible for infringing other people's privacy and splashing them on the front cover of newspapers. But I say again: Two wrongs don't make a right. The prosecution's tactics in this case leave an incredibly ******ing sour taste in my mouth- and I pay their wages as a taxpayer. I can't remember signing up for that.

Either infringing people's privacy is wrong, or not. MAKE YOUR MIND UP.

How did you dodge the swear filter?

[dances with sheeple]

If it's relevant, it's only to suggest that if one is guilty of the crimes they're on trial for, the other must have known about it. Bit of a leap IMO to convict someone on the basis of a- possibly never sent- love letter. I'd hope that the CPS had better evidence than that against both of them.

So what part of the bit when I referred to the partners was so hard to understand? I've just re-read my previous post and it's not badly written. I can't speak about the motivations of people who cheat on their partners 'cos I've never done it, but I daresay most of them don't do it out of an active desire to hurt them?

So what we have here is the unedifying spectacle of the state prying into a woman's personal computer and then splashing what they found all over open court.

Yes, that woman was (allegedly) responsible for infringing other people's privacy and splashing them on the front cover of newspapers. But I say again: Two wrongs don't make a right. The prosecution's tactics in this case leave an incredibly ******ing sour taste in my mouth- and I pay their wages as a taxpayer. I can't remember signing up for that.

Either infringing people's privacy is wrong, or not. MAKE YOUR MIND UP.

Also suggests that if you could lie to your partner for six years or whatever, you would probably lie to the police and in court to cover your ass?

[blobloblob]

How did you dodge the swear filter?

It's a piece of piss!

[dances with sheeple]

It's a piece of piss!

Bastards!

Ooops, is it some kind of thought control?

[dances with sheeple]

******.

Must be.....

[scrappycocco]

Not really up on this phone hacking bullcrap, isn't it just celebrities looking for a quick payday? Will the celebrities be suing the agencies that are hacking us all lol.

[Frank Hovis]

Not really up on this phone hacking bullcrap, isn't it just celebrities looking for a quick payday? Will the celebrities be suing the agencies that are hacking us all lol.

The big law firms were all at it too.

It just seems like nobody likes Murdoch's proxies.

[sombreroloco]

All this hacking thing wouldn't have happened if we weren't in the EU.

[The Masked Tulip]

[Rave]

The police are investigating a crime so of course they looked at her computer. On the other hand, why did brookes hack emails, phones and computers?

Is there any suggestion that she personally used to hit the phones and tap in 1-2-3-4 to get the goods? If so I've missed it. As I understand it she (and Coulson) are on trial for 'Conspiracy'.

To suggest that the editor of a national paper was involved in the tedious business of actually getting the stories is an astounding leap by you .

Read and answer stormymonday's post yesterday at 02.59.

Why bother? I am aware of the CPS's spurious justification for revealing the tenuous 'evidence' for their affair, I just think it's nonsense. I sleep next to my wife every night, but I don't tell her everything about how I operate at work- and I sure as hell wouldn't tell her if I'd broken the law...not least because that would put her in an unfortunate legal position- I love her far too much to do that to her.

At the end of the day you think it's fine for the state to splash revelations about people's relationships about without regard to the feelings of the defendant's wife, and his kids. I guess another broken family means nothing to you.

But it does to me, so I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[okaycuckoo]

The bit about the hidden laptop found by the cleaner anyone? I wonder what was on it?

[dances with sheeple]

The bit about the hidden laptop found by the cleaner anyone? I wonder what was on it?

"Nothing earthshattering" according to the sky news bit I saw.

[ccc]

Is there any suggestion that she personally used to hit the phones and tap in 1-2-3-4 to get the goods? If so I've missed it. As I understand it she (and Coulson) are on trial for 'Conspiracy'.

To suggest that the editor of a national paper was involved in the tedious business of actually getting the stories is an astounding leap by you .

Why bother? I am aware of the CPS's spurious justification for revealing the tenuous 'evidence' for their affair, I just think it's nonsense. I sleep next to my wife every night, but I don't tell her everything about how I operate at work- and I sure as hell wouldn't tell her if I'd broken the law...not least because that would put her in an unfortunate legal position- I love her far too much to do that to her.

At the end of the day you think it's fine for the state to splash revelations about people's relationships about without regard to the feelings of the defendant's wife, and his kids. I guess another broken family means nothing to you.

But it does to me, so I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Feelings for their other halves and their kids ? Sorry but that is solely up to the two people in question to have thought about that prior to having an affair with each other. Their choice - their decision - their consequences. End of story.

I think its relevant information for the case too - as it backs up these are untrustworthy people who are liable to lie and sneak about behind other peoples backs - which unless i have missed something - is the entire premise of this case . . .