Paedogeddon on the British Paedoisles - Paed Heath

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Paedogeddon on the British Paedoisles - Paed Heath

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Now people are queuing up

quote:

Phone hacking: seventy more high profile claimants to sue Trinity Mirror

Trinity Mirror is being sued by more than 70 celebrities, sports stars and politicians after the newspaper group was ordered to pay �1.2m in damages to eight phone hacking victims.

Davina McCall, the television presenter, and Sheryl Gascoigne, the former wife of ex-footballer Paul Gascoigne, are among scores of high-profile figures suing the Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror publisher, the high court in London heard.

Speaking after Trinity Mirror was ordered to make the record payouts, David Sherborne, the barrister for the victims, told the court there was �somewhere in the region of 70 other claims� in preparation.

Earlier on Thursday the newspaper group was ordered to pay �260,250 to the actor Sadie Frost and �188,250 to ex-footballer Paul Gascoigne as part of payments totalling �1.2m over phone hacking at the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and the People.

Sherborne told the judge that a number of the 70 fresh claims were �substantial� even in comparison to the six-figure payouts announced by the judge, Mr Justice Mann.

In addition to the 70 claims, four celebrities� cases were also being �managed�: those of McCall, Sheryl Gascoigne, the actor Holly Davidson and the comedian John Thomson. A further 10 alleged victims have settled out of court.

Trinity Mirror announced after Thursday�s ruling that it was considering an appeal, saying its initial view was that the basis used for calculating the level of damages was incorrect.

However, it also said it was increasing the amount of money set aside to deal with the legal cases from �12m to �28m.

Robert Ashworth, a former Coronation Street producer who told the court that phone hacking had ruined his media career and his marriage to soap actor Tracy Shaw, was awarded �201,250 for the invasion of his privacy.

EastEnders actor Lucy Taggart received a �157,250 payout, while another EastEnders actor, Shane Richie, got �155,000, Coronation Street actor Shobna Gulati got �117,500, BBC executive Alan Yentob was awarded �85,000 and flight attendant Lauren Alcorn got �78,500.

The payouts dwarf those paid by News UK, the publisher of the now-defunct News of the World, to phone-hacking victims. In contrast to those payouts, the Trinity Mirror damages were decided by a high court judge after the victims refused to settle out of court.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Mann found that phone hacking went far beyond that carried out by the Sunday Mirror�s self-confessed �in-house phone hacker�, Dan Evans.

�The practice was so widespread and so frequent in the newspaper that it is likely that some of them will have hacked, though not all the time,� Mann said.

# ? May 21, 2015 18:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 18:30

Munin: Nov 14, 2004

But of course the press narrative is "no criminal convictions no problem" and "look at all the bribery cases against our reporters being dismissed, it was a witch hunt".

I also do wonder how easy reporters at the Sun, the Times etc have it to get confidential sources to talk given how News UK sold all the last lot of sources out. Any insider dirt on what impact that had?

# ? May 22, 2015 13:42

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Neville Thurlbeck just said in the Coulson trial Coulson knew about the Milly Dowler hacking all along, which drops him in it even more.

# ? May 25, 2015 12:58

Cliff Racer: Mar 24, 2007; by Lowtax

Brown Moses posted:

Mr. Justice Mann

Wait, his first name isn't Justice, is it? That would be a pretty awesome name.

# ? May 25, 2015 23:56

goddamnedtwisto: Dec 31, 2004; If you ask me about the mole people in the London Underground, I WILL be forced to kill you; Fun Shoe

Cliff Racer posted:

Wait, his first name isn't Justice, is it? That would be a pretty awesome name.

No, that's his title.

We did have a Judge Judge, who Major Major Major Major-style should never have been promoted, except he then became Justice Judge, then Lord Chief Justice Judge, and is now Baron Judge.

# ? May 26, 2015 00:21

Trin Tragula: Apr 22, 2005

e;f,b

# ? May 26, 2015 00:24

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Another witness says Coulson totally knew about phone hacking

quote:

NoW editor says he used hand signal to tell Andy Coulson of phone hacking

A former News of the World news editor has told a criminal trial in Scotland that phone hacking was �systematic� at the paper and Andy Coulson knew about it when he was editor of the Sunday tabloid.

When James Weatherup was accused of lying he said he was �100% sure� of his evidence. He said he did not want to give evidence and he that he felt sorry for Coulson and his family.

Weatherup said he would use a hand signal to indicate to Coulson if stories had come from phone hacking when his editor asked him about the source of certain stories.

He told the high court in Edinburgh, where Coulson is standing trial on perjury charges, that he went to Coulson shortly after he arrived on the paper as news editor in 2004. He was under pressure to cut the newsdesk budget and wanted to cut the �92,000-a-year contract with Mulcaire�s firm Nine Consultancy.

�Did Mr Coulson appear to be aware or not that Mr Mulcaire was hacking phones?� prosecutor Richard Goddard asked.

�Hacking phones was systematic at the News of the World,� said Weatherup. �Andy would have known that Mulcaire was hacking phones,� he added.

He said he used Mulcaire�s services 137 times and some of those occasions, which he put at �less than a majority�, were for phone hacking. He said he had a system of indicating phone hacking was involved when Coulson, who was editor from 2003 to 2007, queried the source of a story .

Making a gesture with his hand in the shape of a phone, he said: �I would have used a signal at least two or three times when Andy asked me where did that story come from.�

Asked what the gesture was indicating, he replied: �As indicating he was involved in phone hacking activities.�

Coulson is accused of lying under oath about his knowledge of phone hacking at the perjury trial of the Scottish politician Tommy Sheridan in 2010. He denies the charge.

The trial continues.

That's Neville Thurlbeck, Clive Goodman , and now James Weatherup who have all said that under oath. I think there's 2 or 3 weeks left in the trial, so not long to wait for the verdict.

# ? May 26, 2015 13:25

ukle: Nov 28, 2005

Brown Moses posted:

Another witness says Coulson totally knew about phone hacking

That's Neville Thurlbeck, Clive Goodman , and now James Weatherup who have all said that under oath. I think there's 2 or 3 weeks left in the trial, so not long to wait for the verdict.

Has there been any guessing on how long his prison term will be? Can't believe he will get more than Archer got but then again Coulson did commit Perjury in a Perjury trial which could well mean he gets a very long sentence.

# ? May 26, 2015 13:58

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

ukle posted:

Has there been any guessing on how long his prison term will be? Can't believe he will get more than Archer got but then again Coulson did commit Perjury in a Perjury trial which could well mean he gets a very long sentence.

If he is convicted, Sheridan got 3 years for perjury in the original trial, so I guess that might be a baseline.

# ? May 26, 2015 14:25

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Your politicians are in the best company: Real-American-Value-Having Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has been fingered for kiddie diddling. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us/politics/hastert-indictment.html

# ? May 31, 2015 12:11

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Arglebargle III posted:

Your politicians are in the best company: Real-American-Value-Having Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has been fingered for kiddie diddling. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us/politics/hastert-indictment.html

I will say that while British MPs present a fascinating panoply of freakish molester caricatures that's difficult to compete with, "fat molester wrestling coach" is a pretty compelling entry.

# ? May 31, 2015 14:16

Gibfender: Apr 15, 2007; Electricity In Our Homes

Coulson has had the charges dismissed

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/03/andy-coulson-cleared-of-perjury-in-scottish-court

quote:

David Cameron�s former director of communications Andy Coulson has been cleared of lying in court after a Scottish judge threw out charges of alleged perjury.

Lord Burns told Coulson at the high court in Edinburgh he had been formally acquitted of lying under oath about his knowledge of phone hacking at the News of the World while he was the paper�s editor.

The judge�s dramatic decision came following five days of legal debate and deliberations after Coulson�s defence advocate Murdo MacLeod QC successfully argued that Scottish prosecutors had misunderstood the Scottish law on perjury.

Burns had delivered his ruling on Monday morning with the jury absent from court but then agreed to a Crown request for time to consider an appeal. He told Coulson, 47, from Preston in Kent, on Monday that, pending the appeal: �I must suspend the acquittal that I have just given.�

Despite earlier suggestions the prosecution was planning to lodge an urgent appeal on Wednesday, the Crown Office decided late on Tuesday not to contest Burns�s decision.

Burns agreed with MacLeod�s case that Coulson�s alleged lies under oath, when he appeared as a witness during the trial for perjury of former Scottish Socialist party leader Tommy Sheridan in 2010, were not material to the main case against Sheridan at that trial. That therefore failed to meet the required definition of perjury.

The jury, which was sent home a week ago, heard three senior NoW executives accuse Coulson of knowing about hacking and having direct knowledge of the �104,000-a-year contract awarded to Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator convicted in 2007 of helping hack royal family mobile phones for the then NoW royal editor, Clive Goodman.

Coulson has always denied knowing phone hacking was rife at the NoW and said that he only knew of one specific incident of phone hacking, involving David Blunkett.

Burns�s ruling, which came after only six days of evidence in a trial which was due to last for four weeks, ends a four-year ordeal for Coulson that began soon after he resigned as head of communications at No 10 in January 2011, less than a month after Sheridan�s conviction for perjury. Coulson will now be free to try to revive his career as there are no outstanding charges against him either in England or Scotland.

The jury in Edinburgh was not told that Coulson had already served seven months in jail, some of it in high-security prison Belmarsh, after being found guilty at the Old Bailey last year of being involved in a conspiracy to hack phones when he was editor of the News of the World.

Coulson�s acquittal, which comes three years after he was arrested by Scottish detectives at his London home, is a severe blow to Police Scotland and senior prosecutors in Edinburgh.

Police launched the Operation Rubicon investigation into alleged hacking, bugging and Data Protection Act breaches by journalists in July 2011 after the NoW was closed by Rupert Murdoch.

In March, after spending nearly �1m on police salaries under Operation Rubicon, investigating the cases involving 23 hacking victims in Scotland, Police Scotland confirmed that four people had been charged and reported to prosecutors. All four of them have now been cleared, with Coulson the only suspect to stand trial.

The Crown Office told the Guardian on Tuesday evening that prosecutors had dropped charges of perjury against Bob Bird, former editor of the News of the World�s Scotland edition, and charges of perverting the course of justice and other offences against Doug Wight, a news executive with the NoW in Glasgow.

On 1 May, the Crown Office disclosed it was no longer taking action against Gill Smith, a news editor at the Scottish Sun, who had been charged with offences in 2000 and 2001 under Operation Rubicon.

Sheridan was prosecuted in 2010 for lying in a defamation case he pursued against the News of the World after it reported he had visited a swingers� club in Manchester.

He was found guilty of lying in that case and sent to jail. However, during the trial Sheridan, who conducted his own defence, called Coulson as a defence witness and quizzed him about his knowledge of hacking. Coulson had denied he was aware of a culture of hacking when he was at the helm and it was this that triggered this prosecution.

MacLeod successfully argued that the evidence given by Coulson could not have caused Sheridan to have been acquitted in 2010. �With the greatest respect to the advocate depute [the Crown prosecutor] � and I mean no criticism of him � he is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow�s ear,� MacLeod told the court.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 10:17

willie_dee: Jun 21, 2010; I obtain sexual gratification from observing people being inflicted with violent head injuries

Lol how pointless.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 10:20

Zombywuf: Mar 29, 2008

How to trial:

1) Prosecution presents case to jury.

2) Jury is sent home.

3) Defence presents case to judge.

4) Judge announces verdict.

5) Jury called back 2 days later to let them know.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 10:37

zokie: Feb 13, 2006; Out of many, Sweden

He lied under oath but if he didn't it wouldn't have changed the outcome so it's ok?

Is this some common law bullshit or is it like this in other countries?

# ? Jun 3, 2015 10:45

forkboy84: Jun 13, 2012; Corgis love bread. And Puro

zokie posted:

He lied under oath but if he didn't it wouldn't have changed the outcome so it's ok?

Is this some common law bullshit or is it like this in other countries?

So apparently not all lying under oath is perjury in Scots Law. I don't really know poo poo about this, just what I gather from Twitter.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 10:54

AVeryLargeRadish: Aug 19, 2011; I LITERALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO NOT BE A WEIRD SEXUAL CREEP ABOUT PREPUBESCENT ANIME GIRLS, READ ALL ABOUT IT HERE!!!

forkboy84 posted:

So apparently not all lying under oath is perjury in Scots Law. I don't really know poo poo about this, just what I gather from Twitter.

I believe the way it works is that lying under oath is perjury except in cases where the accused has really good lawyers.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 10:56

Wiggly Wayne DDS: Sep 11, 2010

forkboy84 posted:

So apparently not all lying under oath is perjury in Scots Law. I don't really know poo poo about this, just what I gather from Twitter.

This touches on the subject: essentially the prosecution needs to show the relevance of the lie. Still seems like they were more concerned over ramifications it could have over the prior case than making sure questioning under oath has any power. The shirt angle in the article is very amusing too.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 11:00

Zombywuf: Mar 29, 2008

It seems that the lie has to be relevant, either to the case or to the credibility of the witness. The alleged lies were not relevant to to the case, maybe the judge thought Coulson had no credibility in the first place so his lies couldn't have affected anything.

It is, however, normal for this to be decided before the trial, not during it. For some reason the question of relevancy is not considered to be something the jury should worry their pretty little heads over.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 11:15

Zephro: Nov 23, 2000; I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...

So if I'm a witness in a Scottish murder trial I can tell as many lies as I want as long as they're not directly germane to the question of whether x killed y?

edit: not being snarky (well OK a bit snarky) but this just seems weird. Is that really how it works?

# ? Jun 3, 2015 11:17

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

One wonders why he was called as a witness if his statements weren't relevant to the trial.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 11:26

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Zombywuf posted:

How to trial:

1) Prosecution presents case to jury.

2) Jury is sent home.

3) Defence presents case to judge.

3.5) Government presents "those photos" to judge.

4) Judge announces verdict.

5) Jury called back 2 days later to let them know.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 14:43

Zombywuf: Mar 29, 2008

So the judge's decision is here http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c377daa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

It seems to rest on the facts that the prosecution basically didn't present any evidence and that the judge chose to interpret the idea of credibility very narrowly.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 15:12

JFairfax: Oct 23, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

I mean, it is kinda hard to secure a conviction when the prosecution doesn't present any evidence

# ? Jun 3, 2015 15:17

Sad Rhino: Aug 23, 2014

Zephro posted:

So if I'm a witness in a Scottish murder trial I can tell as many lies as I want as long as they're not directly germane to the question of whether x killed y?

If you're asked about something that is irrelevant, sure.

I seriously doubt that Coulson's knowledge of hacking would have come up if Sheridan hadn't been self-represented and gone off on a tangent. Sheridan actually said that he asked because he thought the public needed to know and that he knew it was irrelevant to the actual trial.

This is sensible when you think about it. Why should lying about something that doesn't matter - whether it's phone hacking, your favourite colour or cheating on your wife - give rise to criminal liability?

# ? Jun 3, 2015 15:32

Total Meatlove: Jan 28, 2007; Rangers died, shoujo Hitler cried ;_;

Sad Rhino posted:

This is sensible when you think about it. Why should lying about something that doesn't matter - whether it's phone hacking, your favourite colour or cheating on your wife - give rise to criminal liability?

Because you're under oath.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 15:38

Wiggly Wayne DDS: Sep 11, 2010

Sad Rhino posted:

If you're asked about something that is irrelevant, sure.

I seriously doubt that Coulson's knowledge of hacking would have come up if Sheridan hadn't been self-represented and gone off on a tangent. Sheridan actually said that he asked because he thought the public needed to know and that he knew it was irrelevant to the actual trial.

This is sensible when you think about it. Why should lying about something that doesn't matter - whether it's phone hacking, your favourite colour or cheating on your wife - give rise to criminal liability?

If you're being questioned and don't believe a question has relevance you mention that rather than lie under oath.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 15:40

Safety Biscuits: Oct 21, 2010

Er guys he's clearly taking the piss. Right?

# ? Jun 3, 2015 15:48

Sad Rhino: Aug 23, 2014

Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

If you're being questioned and don't believe a question has relevance you mention that rather than lie under oath.

Which would be interpreted by many/most as an unwillingness to admit to something embarrassing or damaging.

The witness cannot win in this situation. They either refuse to deny an allegation, they admit it (even though the question was irrelevant and, in this case, politically motivated) or they lie.

Put aside whatever feelings you have about Coulson. Would you support, in principle, a witness facing prosecution, conviction and imprisonment because the advocate questioning them decided to abuse the court process?

# ? Jun 3, 2015 16:46

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Embarrassing is sort of a luxury when you're involved in a serious trial. If you've done something you're likely to face trial for then the prosecution needs to prove it materially anyway.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 17:17

suck my woke dick: Oct 10, 2012; I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!

Put this cum-loving slave on ignore immediately!

"Where were you yesterday 5pm, witness"
"I was masturbating to scat porn, your honour"

# ? Jun 3, 2015 17:22

Murderion: Oct 4, 2009; 2019. New York is in ruins. The global economy is spiralling. Cyborgs rule over poisoned wastes.

The only time that's left is
FUN TIME

OwlFancier posted:

Embarrassing is sort of a luxury when you're involved in a serious trial.

Well yes, but it's fairly obvious that Sheridan was abusing the process - if he'd asked a low profile witness whether they'd committed any given crime they could have told him to shove it and there'd be very few repercussions for them. If Coulson had given any answer but the negative, it would have had a serious effect on his career and the business he was working for, as well as shattering his credibility as a witness at the trial.

Put it another way - if a politician was giving evidence at a trial, and was asked whether they'd ever taken drugs or abused their expenses, would that be fair? Even though the information is in the public interest, the wider ramification is that fewer people would be willing to bear witness at a trial if they were forced to perjure or incriminate themselves over any damned thing that crossed a lawyer's mind.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 17:29

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Murderion posted:

Well yes, but it's fairly obvious that Sheridan was abusing the process - if he'd asked a low profile witness whether they'd committed any given crime they could have told him to shove it and there'd be very few repercussions for them. If Coulson had given any answer but the negative, it would have had a serious effect on his career and the business he was working for, as well as shattering his credibility as a witness at the trial.

Put it another way - if a politician was giving evidence at a trial, and was asked whether they'd ever taken drugs or abused their expenses, would that be fair? Even though the information is in the public interest, the wider ramification is that fewer people would be willing to bear witness at a trial if they were forced to perjure or incriminate themselves over any damned thing that crossed a lawyer's mind.

It would only have an effect on their career if they couldn't honestly deny it. Which is to say, if they had done it.

Which would seem to amount to saying that politicians should be allowed to lie about their illicit activity to further their own interests and trials shouldn't be an exception to that.

If you really have an issue, have an independent counsel or the judge dismiss the question before the witness answers on the grounds of it being irrelevant, though personally I would favour letting people incriminate themselves.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jun 3, 2015

# ? Jun 3, 2015 17:33

Murderion: Oct 4, 2009; 2019. New York is in ruins. The global economy is spiralling. Cyborgs rule over poisoned wastes.

The only time that's left is
FUN TIME

I'm not sure if you can go Law-and-Order style "OBJECTION" all over the place in Scottish courts. Something to look into.

Also remember that you can lose a job or public profile over something that isn't illegal, eg:

blowfish posted:

"Where were you yesterday 5pm, witness"
"I was masturbating to scat porn, your honour"

# ? Jun 3, 2015 17:40

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

I can't think of anything that would be particularly damaging to a political career which isn't in the public interest and indicative of unfitness to serve in your official capacity, and which would also conceivably come up in a trial.

Whether you stick your dick a sock full of poo poo for fun isn't likely to be pertinent to the case, or something you would be unable to answer honestly about.

"On a date" would be broadly accurate. If they want to know how many positions you tried, tell them it's none of their business, nobody's going to fire you for that.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Jun 3, 2015

# ? Jun 3, 2015 17:42

Zombywuf: Mar 29, 2008

Murderion posted:

I'm not sure if you can go Law-and-Order style "OBJECTION" all over the place in Scottish courts. Something to look into.

The judge makes explicit reference to the fact that the questions could have been, but were not, objected to. He then says that the motives of the prosecution were entirely altruistic in doing this whereas Sherridan's motives in asking the questions were obviously batshit.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 17:56

Zombywuf: Mar 29, 2008

blowfish posted:

"Where were you yesterday 5pm, witness"
"I was masturbating to scat porn, your honour"

quote:

We don't care you sick gently caress, answer the question as to your location

# ? Jun 3, 2015 17:57

Mr. Squishy: Mar 22, 2010; A country where you can always get richer.

OwlFancier posted:

It would only have an effect on their career if they couldn't honestly deny it. Which is to say, if they had done it.

Remember when Cameron first got in and everyone entertained themselves for a week asking him if he'd ever done drugs.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 18:17

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Would that it had had more of an effect.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 18:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 18:30

Murderion: Oct 4, 2009; 2019. New York is in ruins. The global economy is spiralling. Cyborgs rule over poisoned wastes.

The only time that's left is
FUN TIME

Laws which protect people from being forced to incriminate themselves are good, even (especially) when applied to people you don't like.

# ? Jun 3, 2015 18:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Paedogeddon on the British Paedoisles - Paed Heath

«‹›99 »