maqroll Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Brooks walks, what a surprise. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Piss poor, Tony. I had you above playing to the gallery to gain likes ... Shame on you , but at least you are + 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 jury's only act on evidence presented so in other words reached the right decision ...It's interesting that those ( by which I mean the usual suspects ) jumping up and down with indignation here , were the same ones telling us to respect Chilcot because clearly it was correct and Blair really really didn't lie and is a nice man who is just understoodThey can't have their cake and make it disappear in Diego Garcia as the saying goesWhat the shagging hell are you on about?'The usual suspects'? Stop grouping people together for your own convenience and your own 'conspiracy'.I said a few posts ago that I was happy with Brooks getting off if there was reasonable doubt. I think Blair is a lying, two-faced twunt. Chilcott was a whitewash as are all/the majority of other 'inquiries'.I have no idea what happened to the Malaysian plane and, other than the 'facts' that you and others have been given, neither do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 Piss poor, Tony.I had you above playing to the gallery to gain likes ... Shame on you , but at least you are + 1 Piss poorer, Tony.I'm not playing to any gallery - I'm responding to what you've written/posted. History ought to reinforce that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Piss poor, Tony.I had you above playing to the gallery to gain likes ... Shame on you , but at least you are + 1 Piss poorer, Tony. I'm not playing to any gallery - I'm responding to what you've written/posted. History ought to reinforce that. I need a ruling here from one of the grammar brigade as I'm not sure "piss poorer" can be allowed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 As I'm not concerned about any gallery then you can take a ruling from your favourite 80s guitarist and it wouldn't matter. Piss poor. piss poorer, piss poorest. Sounds right. If Fowler ever passed judgement on it then I'm a dutchman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I don't know who's right here, I haven't followed it enough, but if Snowy is wrong, please can we call him Snowy van Chap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted June 25, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted June 25, 2014 Here's an excellent take on why Brooks walked free. It's important to understand that the charges against her were not proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' Something else to remember is that a whole bunch of other people who were charged... pleaded guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) Here's an excellent take on why Brooks walked free. It's important to understand that the charges against her were not proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' Something else to remember is that a whole bunch of other people who were charged... pleaded guilty. Thanks, very useful! I was more interested in how she got off the charge of the bribery of government officials, than the other stuff. It seems that 'don't ask, don't tell' is still a viable firewall, for those at the top who wish to avoid accountability. That clears things up, nicely. Edited June 25, 2014 by MakemineVanilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted June 25, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted June 25, 2014 MMV, it seems that although she knew she was paying for information from an 'ace military contact' there's no way of proving beyond reasonable doubt that she knew for certain that it was a serving member of the armed forces (crime - guilty); it could have been a retired colonel in a pub with a bit of inside gossip (not a crime - not guilty). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 MMV, it seems that although she knew she was paying for information from an 'ace military contact' there's no way of proving beyond reasonable doubt that she knew for certain that it was a serving member of the armed forces (crime - guilty); it could have been a retired colonel in a pub with a bit of inside gossip (not a crime - not guilty). There were e-mails where she agreed to pay said 'colonel' £100k by some clandestine method via Thomas Cook's. £100k would buy some decent gossip, I think. But the firewall was never breached, so home and free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 I don't know who's right here, I haven't followed it enough, but if Snowy is wrong, please can we call him Snowy van Chap Sounds like a continental version of white van man. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I don't know who's right here, I haven't followed it enough, but if Snowy is wrong, please can we call him Snowy van Chap Has snowy ever been right ? Therefore call away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 Well, I do try. And then 10 minutes later when I get my breath back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 25, 2014 Author Share Posted June 25, 2014 That Stuart Kuttner bloke (on C4 news now) is utterly obnoxious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I wonder if Channel 4 News realise the irony of asking about press regulation, and condemning paparazzi style photography, journalists going to extreme lengths to get a story, and invasion of privacy; while door stepping Charlie Brooks, and asking him to comment on an on going court case, against the wishes of the case's judge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Well, I formed the view that Rebekah paid the police for stories when she was shown addressing a House of Commons Committee and saying "Yeah, we pay the police for stories" (I paraphrase). Today I have learnt that I drew a totally false impression from her evidence, and she never paid them at all. Silly me. She is restored in my estimation as a person whose sincerity, integrity, professionalism, honesty, and love for children, small furry animals, and nice older people (though not necessarily the ones who soil themselves) is utterly beyond reproach. Glad we can put that one to bed, as they say in the Cotswolds over their country suppers. I agree with your sentiment Peter but unfortunately the omission was protected by parliamentary privilege so could not be submitted as evidence. The saga isn't over yet. Lots more journalists will now be tried, Coulson may be retried after the jury could not reach a verdict on the other charges (then faces a trip north of the border), Murdoch and other executives face questioning under more general corporate laws. You can't discount more evidence being discovered. Maybe all the lose ends weren't tied up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted June 25, 2014 Moderator Share Posted June 25, 2014 I didn't follow the case too closely in the end but all I can say is that yesterdays verdicts are pretty much what the prosecuting counsel expected they would be.Then why did they waste tax payers money on a prosecution they knew they wouldn't win when they could have saved the tax payer money from which we could have bought a Hospital instead ( isn't everything measured in hospitals these days ? )Because the expectation I'm referring to was made at the end of the trial, not before proceedings began. Also I'm talking about the prosecuting QC, not the CPS whose decision it is whether to prosecute or not and their parameters are that they proceed if they consider that there is a reasonable expectation of a win, not a definite win. And it is very easy to argue that this trial was most definitely in the public interest, regardless of the result. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It was bad enough that Cameron hired him but what makes his stance worse is the inaction that followed. The story of News Group paying Gordon Taylor a settlement broke in July 2009. This blew NI's 'One Rogue Reporter' line out of the water (after all why would a Royal correspondent be interested in the PFA Chairman's messages). What sort of leader would do nothing in this situation possibly having been lied to in person? Cameron's view at the time was: Guardian However, a spokeswoman for Cameron said the Tory leader was "very relaxed about the story". Coulson did not resign until 2011. If we learnt anything from New Labour it's that you have to resign at least twice before anyone questions your judgement at being hired hello ahhh but Labour, been on hols? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) Yeah a nobbled jury sounds much more plausible ...'Much more plausible' than what? That she was whiter than white or that she and her minions (and any further help she/they may have had) were bloody good at getting rid of anything that may have confirmed her guilt? A previous poster who said he followed the trial (so I'm assuming that was the details not just the dates) thought the difference was a single piece of evidence against Coulson. The inference I drew was that had the evidence not been disposed of so well then she and others might have had a more difficult case to answer (hoping that's on the right side of the line for VT!). jury's only act on evidence presented so in other words reached the right decision ... It's interesting that those ( by which I mean the usual suspects ) jumping up and down with indignation here , were the same ones telling us to respect Chilcot because clearly it was correct and Blair really really didn't lie and is a nice man who is just understood They can't have their cake and make it disappear in Diego Garcia as the saying goesblimey ahhh but labour we are making up for lost time Is it Groundhog Day you did the same post twice in a row Edited June 25, 2014 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts