|
Brown Moses posted:Apparently the source was unclear. The defence lawyer for Brooks seems to be pushing that the case is incredibly confusing and no-one can make sense of it, so how can it be clear Brooks is guilty. Another triumph for the CPS. Has anyone seen the prosecution's submissions for this? It does come across as the flimsiest of cases to try and prove.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2014 11:39 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 09:47 |
|
Somebody get Brown Moses' team in there, they'll have flowcharts and everything.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2014 11:50 |
|
Fucks sake
|
# ? Feb 20, 2014 12:10 |
|
Brown Moses posted:Apparently the source was unclear. The defence lawyer for Brooks seems to be pushing that the case is incredibly confusing and no-one can make sense of it, so how can it be clear Brooks is guilty. So literally the Chewbacca defence.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2014 12:21 |
|
Suzanne Moorequote:Rebekah Brooks claiming to have set up Women in Journalism? Not how I remember it. Do you Deborah? @DeborahJaneOrr quote:@suzanne_moore Of course not. But she was there early on, complaining of her Sun colleagues's sexism. Back when she didn't like page 3.
|
# ? Feb 20, 2014 15:55 |
|
Brooks was turning on the waterworks in court today. The poor thing, having her personal life exposed publicly like that. And of course she didn't have a multi year affair with Coulson, she just had several periods of physical intimacy with him. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/21/rebekah-brooks-affair-andy-coulson-phone-hacking-trial quote:Rebekah Brooks has told the Old Bailey she did not have a six-year relationship with Andy Coulson, David Cameron's former spin doctor, as she described how her personal life had been a "bit of a car crash for many years".
|
# ? Feb 21, 2014 21:41 |
|
marktheando posted:Brooks was turning on the waterworks in court today. The poor thing, having her personal life exposed publicly like that. And of course she didn't have a multi year affair with Coulson, she just had several periods of physical intimacy with him.
|
# ? Feb 21, 2014 21:45 |
|
notaspy posted:Immoral? Maybe, a friend reaches out, you offer to help. It's yet to be proved that she knew what was going on. You asked "what's wrong with these two being friends?". While there's nothing wrong with a friendly relationship in se, their implicit approval of each other's behaviours certainly does have bearing on their character. While I'm not in the business of finding anyone guilty in court, I certainly have license to find people morally dubious. I admit that's an understatement of my true assessment of Brooks and Blair, but I modulated my statement to allow for a more nuanced approach to their actions. Note that I didn't call them immoral nor the case open and shut (it isn't as evidenced by the goings on in court).
|
# ? Feb 22, 2014 01:01 |
|
On an ancillary note, Piers hasn't a job anymore. http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/23/news/piers-morgan-cnn/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
|
# ? Feb 24, 2014 06:56 |
|
Is "I didn't know I was breaking the law" ever a very good defence? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26337845
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 14:35 |
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Is "I didn't know I was breaking the law" ever a very good defence?
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 14:40 |
|
There might be no concrete evidence to tie her to the hacking i.e. no invoice / approval of payment signed by her. If so and all the evidence against her is circumstantial she could be going with the defense of she didn't approve of it and even if it was going on in her command and someone told her she didn't pay any attention to it as she thought it was legal. Might actually work as a defense, as she wouldn't be party to the act and even if she was made aware by someone at a meeting she didn't pay attention to it. Guess they will have to tie it down to her actually having ordered or approved of the hacking to make it stick.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 14:47 |
|
I think she hosed up last week, but I can't say why in public. I'm sure the prosecution noticed.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 16:34 |
|
Brown Moses posted:I think she hosed up last week, but I can't say why in public. I'm sure the prosecution noticed. I understand why you have to say this but GODDAMN STOP BLUEBALLSING THIS THREAD.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 17:00 |
|
Believe me, it kills me too.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 17:05 |
|
Brown Moses posted:Believe me, it kills me too. It kills you regardless, but now everyone reading this thread wants to know the same thing you know when up to a few minutes ago we didn't even know there was anything to know. Get me?
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 17:11 |
|
BM gets his jollies by making the thread meticulously scour over witness testimony.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 17:12 |
|
OK I'll do it too if someone tells me where I can find them.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 17:16 |
|
Gonzo McFee posted:Is "I didn't know I was breaking the law" ever a very good defence? For a minor, non-obvious, first offense it could very easily be enough to get you off with a warning. If there was no real damage and it seems unlikely the persons going to do it again then there's often little point in doing anything more. Police and judges do get quite a bit of leeway about this stuff. For a big case like this, with some relatively serious changes, involving people breaking the law while working in a professional setting, then yeah it should be seen as a pretty crap excuses.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 17:18 |
|
Yeah it definitely depends on the law broken and the mood of the copper involved. I once got stopped by the police and they found my filleting knife in the driver's door panel. That's apparently illegal, a fact I was unaware of. They let me off with a warning when I told them I was a butcher even though it was my day off, on the proviso I kept it in my boot in future.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 17:24 |
|
Brown Moses posted:Believe me, it kills me too. If I report you for blueballing us, do I end up getting a ban?
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 17:28 |
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Yeah it definitely depends on the law broken and the mood of the copper involved. I once got stopped by the police and they found my filleting knife in the driver's door panel. That's apparently illegal, a fact I was unaware of. They let me off with a warning when I told them I was a butcher even though it was my day off, on the proviso I kept it in my boot in future. Surely it's far more dangerous in your shoe
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 17:33 |
|
The Supreme Court posted:Surely it's far more dangerous in your shoe Nah mate he just says he's Scottish and counts it as a sghain dubh
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 18:50 |
|
June 2001 is all I'll say.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 19:21 |
|
Brooks did 9/11!
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 19:26 |
|
Oops. If it's what I think it is, its a big one.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 19:30 |
|
That's fairly easy to worm out of though, since being negligent of your own rules isn't a crime in itself.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 19:35 |
|
I am very worried about news desk's spending, what is going on? It's a disciplinary situation. How am I going to make myself any clearer? No, not at all.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 19:37 |
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:I am very worried about news desk's spending, what is going on? It's a disciplinary situation. How am I going to make myself any clearer? I'm pretty sure quite a lot of the western world know she's guilty as a dog sitting next to a poo poo on your carpet, so it doesn't change much. At the moment I'm not too sure that the phrasing "tell me when you're spending" is a smoking gun in the way that "Tell me what you're spending it on" would be. The bigger deal would be if she said she had no reason to know, in which case she's flatly contradicted herself under oath from october 2013. BM if I just broke the law let me know and I'll change it, I don't know how this works given I didn't watch the proceedings and thus no leaks from court are happening that I can think of.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 19:50 |
|
Brown Moses posted:I think she hosed up last week, but I can't say why in public. I'm sure the prosecution noticed. Does the prosecution get another "go" to point this out?
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 19:52 |
|
Gambrinus posted:Does the prosecution get another "go" to point this out? She's been called as a defence witness, so the prosecution gets to examine her, then the defence gets another go. I've just finished jury duty today, and that's how it was done in the two cases I did.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 20:18 |
|
Brown Moses posted:She's been called as a defence witness, so the prosecution gets to examine her, then the defence gets another go. I've just finished jury duty today, and that's how it was done in the two cases I did. You're a civil crusader and no mistake!
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 20:29 |
|
My advice, if you ever do jury service, bring a book or smart phone and charger, cause there's a lot of waiting around.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 20:43 |
|
Brown Moses posted:My advice, if you ever do jury service, bring a book or smart phone and charger, cause there's a lot of waiting around. 3DS supremacy. They usually have terrible reception and crap wi-fi being hammered by a hundred people trying to get extra lives in Candy Crush.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 21:10 |
|
I just got a jury summons (which I'm hoping to god will be deferred until later in the year, since I'm self-employed and will be in the middle of a project when they want me) - are you allowed to bring laptops or tablets? Because if I'm going to be waiting around for hours, I'd at least like to get some work done.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 21:13 |
|
Payndz posted:I just got a jury summons (which I'm hoping to god will be deferred until later in the year, since I'm self-employed and will be in the middle of a project when they want me) - are you allowed to bring laptops or tablets? Because if I'm going to be waiting around for hours, I'd at least like to get some work done. I was, don't expect wi-fi though, we didn't have any where we were. Expect to be there for two weeks, I ended up doing two trials, and I would have done another if they didn't plead guilty. The group who went in today were starting a 4 week trial, although you can choose to opt out of those if you have holidays or work commitments.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 21:21 |
|
Brown Moses posted:I was, don't expect wi-fi though, we didn't have any where we were. Expect to be there for two weeks, I ended up doing two trials, and I would have done another if they didn't plead guilty. The group who went in today were starting a 4 week trial, although you can choose to opt out of those if you have holidays or work commitments. Unless you're sitting in the jury for the Trial from hell and are forced to go on strike, and therefore bring down a two year, £14m trial. The defence barristers made out like bandits, whereas the jury suffered financial troubles. I don't want to contemplate the boredom the jury must have endured, both in the courtroom (complex fraud and corruption case) and the jury room (pre-smartphone days).
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 22:01 |
|
HortonNash posted:Unless you're sitting in the jury for the Trial from hell and are forced to go on strike, and therefore bring down a two year, £14m trial. The defence barristers made out like bandits, whereas the jury suffered financial troubles. Juries have absolutely no business in cases like that tbh. In fact juries have no business in anything ever, as "pick 12 people off the street" is an utterly terrible method at determining anything. When are we scrapping the idiotic system and letting actual legally trained professionals figure out if someone's done something wrong?
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 22:14 |
|
Spangly A posted:Juries have absolutely no business in cases like that tbh. In fact juries have no business in anything ever, as "pick 12 people off the street" is an utterly terrible method at determining anything. When are we scrapping the idiotic system and letting actual legally trained professionals figure out if someone's done something wrong? You're placing a lot more faith in public school boys, than is already the case, if you replace juries with legally trained professionals.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 22:18 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 09:47 |
|
HortonNash posted:You're placing a lot more faith in public school boys, than is already the case, if you replace juries with legally trained professionals. I'd rather have a group of 12 legally trained public school boys decide my complicated fraud case than 12 people picked at random from the public.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2014 22:30 |