Paedogeddon on the British Paedoisles - Paed Heath

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

ultrabindu: Jan 28, 2009

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 10:12

VanSandman: Feb 16, 2011; SWAP.AVI EXCHANGER

Somebody get Brown Moses' team in there, they'll have flowcharts and everything.

# ? Feb 20, 2014 11:50

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

Fucks sake

# ? Feb 20, 2014 12:10

Wolfsbane: Jul 29, 2009; What time is it, Eccles?

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

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Suzanne Moore

quote:

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

marktheando: Nov 4, 2006

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".

Brooks, in the witness box at the phone-hacking trial for a second day on Friday, told the jury she was "incredibly close" to Coulson and described him as her "best friend" but said it was wrong of the prosecution to characterise their relationship as a six-year affair.

She also revealed that she could not have children herself, that IVF treatment had failed and her cousin was the surrogate mother of her two-year-old daughter Scarlett.

Brooks told the court that she had several periods of "physical intimacy" with Coulson, but the police and prosecution had misinterpreted a letter she had written to him declaring her love for him back in February 2004.

"I seem to remember sometimes I would write things down to myself. Obviously it's a letter and I probably woke up the next morning and thought better of it," she said of the letter, which was discovered by police when they searched her Chelsea home following her arrest in 2011.

Brooks came close to tears as she revealed the intimate details of her relationship with Coulson and her former husband, the actor Ross Kemp, at one point clutching a handkerchief and asking for a break.

"I do not know if anyone has been in the situation at a time of hurt, you come home and have a couple of glasses of wine and shouldn't go on the computer. That's what I did. I wrote my feelings down, these are my thoughts, probably with the intention of sending it but I probably thought better about it the next day," she said in reference to the letter to Coulson.

The jury has already been told that the letter revealed her love for Coulson. It has been read to the jury twice � parts during the prosecution's opening in early November and again at the beginning of February when they were shown the full two pages.

"I love you, care about you, worry about you," the letter said.

It was claimed that the pair, who are both on trial for allegedly conspiring to hack phones while they worked together at the News of the World,, dated in secret between 1998 and 2004. Both deny a charge of conspiring to intercept communications.

Asked by her counsel, Jonathan Laidlaw QC, if she had a six-year relationship with Coulson she said: "Well, first of all it's not true." She added: "I know that's what the police and prosecution say having analysed the letter. At the time I wrote this, I was in a great deal of emotional anguish."

Coulson was Brooks's deputy when she edited the paper from 2000 and replaced her as editor when she switched to the Sun in 2003.

She told the court she met Coulson in 1995 and they became good friends and she began a physical relationship with him in 1998, at a time when she had split up with Kemp.

She got back together with the former EastEnders actor that year and they planned on building a life together but the relationship began to unravel in 2003.

She then reignited relations with Coulson, the court heard. Laidlaw asked if there had been "intimacy between you in that period 2003 and 2005". She replied: "Yes." Laidlaw asked if this happened "again in 2006", she replied: "Yes."

Brooks said she was "incredibly close" to Coulson. "He was my best friend," she said, but added that their closeness "certainly complicated the friendship".

She added: "Any affair is by its very nature dysfunctional. It certainly added a complexity to what was a very good friendship."

Brooks said Coulson knew that her personal life had been a "car crash for many years" and that the pair shared the experience of working incredibly long hours.

Asked about her relationship with Kemp, Brooks said: "The two of us weren't meant to be. Andy and I weren't meant to be but then I met Charlie and I was happy for the first time.

"When Charlie and I met we knew very quickly that we wanted to be together. I told Charlie about the failed fertility tests in the past and said if we did get together [and] he wanted children I probably wasn't the right person because of the difficulties. He overcame that."

Brooks described how the pair explored the idea of surrogacy but had largely given up on the prospect of having children when her mother met her cousin while shopping in Warrington. Brooks's cousin then offered to be the pair's surrogate mother to her daughter, Scarlett, born on 25 January 2012.

Brooks revealed that she tried having children with Kemp in 2001 and she then started fertility treatment which continued until 2002.

In 2003, both their lives changed when the Iraq war started. She and her senior staff moved into a hotel in Wapping, east London, near the News International offices, because of the pressures of work which involved editions published at 4am and 5am in the morning. Kemp was also doing long hours and their lives were put "on hold".

She told the court she met Kemp in the autumn of 1995 and they got engaged in 1996. Laidlaw put it to her: "It wasn't the easiest of relationships." She explained she split from him in 1997.

They got back together in 1998. "We started speaking again at my 30th birthday." Asked whether it was a slow or fast process of rebuilding their relationship, she said: "I think it was a slow process, having gone from meeting to getting engaged and it not working out. We decided to take it a bit easier."

Laidlaw then asked how the relationship was in 2001. "We brought up the subject of living together, taking this seriously, and buying a house and getting married and having children," Brooks replied.

Her voice dropped and she grabbed a tissue as she began to well up. Laidlaw interjected: "I'm sorry, I have just got to delve there." She then asked: "Could I have a little break, sorry." The judge acceded to her request, giving her a 15-minute break. She returned looking teary.

Brooks is facing four charges related to a 12-year period at News International. The charges are linked to allegations of phone hacking at the News of the World, illegal payments to public officials at the Sun, which she also edited, and an alleged attempt to conceal material from police in 2011 when the police's phone-hacking investigation was at its height.

She denies all charges.

The trial continues.

# ? Feb 21, 2014 21:41

Wiggly Wayne DDS: Sep 11, 2010

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.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/21/rebekah-brooks-affair-andy-coulson-phone-hacking-trial

Can they at least get creative in their manipulation tactics on the jury?

# ? Feb 21, 2014 21:45

Elliptical Dick: Oct 11, 2008; I made the bald man cry
into the turtle stew

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.

Most of us here are looking at this as an open and shut case due to our bias against the defendants, but in the end it's about what can legally be proven and there are plenty of gaps so far.

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

Billy the Mountain: Feb 3, 2005; I used to be TheRealLuquado

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

Gonzo McFee: Jun 19, 2010

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

Wiggly Wayne DDS: Sep 11, 2010

Gonzo McFee posted:

Is "I didn't know I was breaking the law" ever a very good defence?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26337845

Ignorance of the law is a very strong defense if you're going for insanity.

# ? Feb 25, 2014 14:40

ukle: Nov 28, 2005

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

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

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

hexa: Dec 10, 2004; And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom

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

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

Believe me, it kills me too.

# ? Feb 25, 2014 17:05

stickyfngrdboy: Oct 21, 2010

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

Plavski: Feb 1, 2006; I could be a revolutionary

BM gets his jollies by making the thread meticulously scour over witness testimony.

# ? Feb 25, 2014 17:12

stickyfngrdboy: Oct 21, 2010

OK I'll do it too if someone tells me where I can find them.

# ? Feb 25, 2014 17:16

dr_rat: Jun 4, 2001

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

stickyfngrdboy: Oct 21, 2010

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

notaspy: Mar 22, 2009

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

The Supreme Court: Feb 25, 2010; Pirate World: Nearly done!

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 :downsrim:

# ? Feb 25, 2014 17:33

Trin Tragula: Apr 22, 2005

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 :pseudo:

# ? Feb 25, 2014 18:50

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

June 2001 is all I'll say.

# ? Feb 25, 2014 19:21

Plavski: Feb 1, 2006; I could be a revolutionary

Brooks did 9/11!

# ? Feb 25, 2014 19:26

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Oops. If it's what I think it is, its a big one.

# ? Feb 25, 2014 19:30

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

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

Wiggly Wayne DDS: Sep 11, 2010

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

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

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?

No, not at all.

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

Gambrinus: Mar 1, 2005

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

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

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

Plavski: Feb 1, 2006; I could be a revolutionary

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

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

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

dorkasaurus_rex: Jun 10, 2005; gawrsh do you think any women will be there

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

Small Strange Bird: Sep 22, 2006; Merci, chaton!

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

Brown Moses: Feb 22, 2002

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

HortonNash: Oct 10, 2012

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

Spangly A: May 14, 2009; God help you if ever you're caught on these shores

A man's ambition must indeed be small
To write his name upon a shithouse wall

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.

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).

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

HortonNash: Oct 10, 2012

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 10:12

tentish klown: Apr 3, 2011

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

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

«‹›99 »