|
Usual advice for visiting the Old Bailey applies: don't bring any electronics (or be prepared to pay a local shop to mind them for you) and show up at 9am if you want to get into the public gallery for a popular trial.
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
So, rumor says that there'll be a verdict soon, and possibly charges in America after.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:So, rumor says that there'll be a verdict soon, and possibly charges in America after. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
Well the judge is doing the summing up at the moment, then the jury will retire to consider their verdict, at that point it's just a case of twiddling our thumbs until the verdict. Then it'll probably be a week or two at least before the sentencing, so expect it to be around mid to late July before this is all over. When I say over, it's more like act 1 is over, with many more to go, especially if they are found guilty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm certainly not going to be expecting it to finish any time soon. May buy Peter Jukes' book, looks good. I'm a little worried it will be wrapped up in legalese and be a bit inaccessible though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 11:48
|
|
|
His trial email updates are accessible enough, probably the only thing keeping me up to date with what's going on, so the book should be more of the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 11:50
|
|
They'll all just be found innocent. They're too rich and well connected to be found guilty. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:They'll all just be found innocent. They're too rich and well connected to be found guilty. This thread just gets better and better with every post that expresses this sentiment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 12:50
|
|
|
Does anyone know when Private Eye will run their thing? After the jury's verdict has been given?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Anything good in the summing up? Especially about the destruction of evidence bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Elsewhere in phone hackingquote:Mirror group faces new phone-hacking claims
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
We don't have a general "holy poo poo the state of the media" thread other than this so I'm putting this here http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/itv-paid-student-bar-tab-in-binge-drinking-expos/5072986.articleBoredclarts posted:ITV paid student bar tab in binge drinking exposé Who thought that was a good idea? "duty of care? naaaah gently caress 'em" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:We don't have a general "holy poo poo the state of the media" thread other than this so I'm putting this here http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/itv-paid-student-bar-tab-in-binge-drinking-expos/5072986.article "Young people are drinking too much. Let's buy them some drinks to illustrate the problem" 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 10:57
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Jury has retired to consider verdicts. Start the clock!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
I know the defence had a load of summing up, but I never heard much about the prosecution's. Did they have one? I know nothing about the system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
It appears the Sun forgot to put a key, legally required, piece of information on their free papers, which may lead to a big fine. Tom Watson has already said he's looking into it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:It appears the Sun forgot to put a key, legally required, piece of information on their free papers, which may lead to a big fine. Tom Watson has already said he's looking into it.  Chances of it actually getting expensive for the Sun?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 09:44
|
|
|
I wouldn't expect anything to come of that. While it appears the Sun has not complied with the law, the level of harm or any disadvantage caused to others would be a crucial consideration for both the Attorney General when deciding whether to take action and the courts when sentencing. Almost everyone knows who publishes the Sun and anyone who doesn't can easily find out. I'd be interested to know whether any cases have been brought against established publishers under that law since it was introduced. I suspect it exists purely to catch people doing one-off publications attacking politicians, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
Here's the judges summing of the case, very long read http://jackofkent.com/2014/06/r-v-brooks-and-others-summing-up/
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
Brown Moses Blog exclusive, Tom Watson is contacting the AG and Royal Mail over the Sun's Newspaper giveaway and their failure to include an imprint http://brown-moses-hackgate.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/tom-watson-mp-contacts-attorney-general.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
Political parties are also required, under PPERA, to include similar information. Which often leads to expensive pulping operations when they forget. It's not a laughing matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Political parties are also required, under PPERA, to include similar information. Which often leads to expensive pulping operations when they forget. It's not a laughing matter. If the scum get done for a billion quid over it, I don't think I'll be able to stop laughing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
They won't. There has to be some sort of nexus between the harm caused and the sentence imposed. In this instance, the harm is non-existent, regardless of how much hate the Sun deserves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
OppyDoppyDopp posted:They won't. There has to be some sort of nexus between the harm caused and the sentence imposed. In this instance, the harm is non-existent, regardless of how much hate the Sun deserves. That only is a solid consideration if the target is likeable or powerful though. Drugs and copyright stuff for example is not tightly tied to harm. Note also that the people prosecuted can be demonised easily enough and generally don't have the means to cause trouble to anyone involved in the process. Conversely, celebrities don't end up for life in jail for their repeated drug "peccadilloes".
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
So, She got away with it, all of it. He's getting away with the bribery charges, less than 2 years in jail, and probably not even that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 02:55
|
|
Comstar posted:So, She got away with it, all of it. He's getting away with the bribery charges, less than 2 years in jail, and probably not even that. They are powerful people, and the powerful go unpunished in the UK just like everywhere else. Justice is a pretty word used to get people to die for the powerful in wars and such, it's not something to be used on the powerful, just by them. 
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
It turns out it's pretty tough to prove a conspiracy. Who knew?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:They are powerful people, and the powerful go unpunished in the UK just like everywhere else. Justice is a pretty word used to get people to die for the powerful in wars and such, it's not something to be used on the powerful, just by them. Did you see how pisspoor the case against her, her husband and her pa was? If I was of a conspiratorial mind I would make with interest that all the evidence available pointed to the more politically damaging person while saving the chosen one. This is why we need an organisation that can investigate the rich and powerful in secrecy. As soon as NI saw this coming they deleted everything, truly does government need to be moving at the speed of business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
What I don't understand is why Cameron gets to "apologize" for hiring Coulson. Supposedly he didn't know about his crimes, so why would he apologize? Doesn't that come off as hollow, meaningless pandering yes I know it's David Cameron? If he was going to apologize, shouldn't he apologize for kowtowing to Murdoch? Who is supposed to buy this poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:What I don't understand is why Cameron gets to "apologize" for hiring Coulson. Supposedly he didn't know about his crimes, so why would he apologize? Doesn't that come off as hollow, meaningless pandering yes I know it's David Cameron? If he was going to apologize, shouldn't he apologize for kowtowing to Murdoch? Who is supposed to buy this poo poo? It's also why it was such a non-apology.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 08:35
|
|
|
No, I know. But what exactly is he meant to be apologizing for? (see above) It's the most cowardly and insubstantial announcement I've ever heard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
ufarn posted:Cameron promised to apologize, if Coulson would get convicted. Don't have a link handy, but it happened a while ago. "I have an old fashioned view about innocent until proven guilty. But if it turns out I've been lied to, that would be a moment for a profound apology," Cameron told MPs. "And in that event, I can tell you I will not fall short." http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cameron-will-apologize-if-ex-aide-lied-about-hacking-1.1079236 And then he fell short and almost derailed the entire trial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
The Guardian have a good piece looking back at the trial, including the difference in resources to the prosecution and defence. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/25/-sp-phone-hacking-trial-rebekah-brooks-rupert-murdoch
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
Plavski posted:"I have an old fashioned view about innocent until proven guilty. But if it turns out I've been lied to, that would be a moment for a profound apology," Cameron told MPs. "And in that event, I can tell you I will not fall short." It was surprisingly bad timing was it....
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
I've seen this going around so I'd like to clarify that Coulson having access to classified documents isn't precisely the issue. His clearance allowed for supervised access to them, but his statements during Leveson mentioned unsupervised access. Heard of an email cache [80,000 of them on a CD] that turned up and nearly derailed the trial. Anyone know the situation around how that appeared?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:I've seen this going around so I'd like to clarify that Coulson having access to classified documents isn't precisely the issue. His clearance allowed for supervised access to them, but his statements during Leveson mentioned unsupervised access. And what was in them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
notaspy posted:And what was in them? e: The trial was nearly derailed as it was evidence that the defense didn't know about in advance
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
notaspy posted:This is why we need an organisation that can investigate the rich and powerful in secrecy. As soon as NI saw this coming they deleted everything, truly does government need to be moving at the speed of business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
Also it's utterly unbelievable that Brooks didn't know and this verdict bears no relationship to the truth of what actually happened. At least we get to refer to her as "the staggeringly incompetent Rebekah Brooks" for the rest of her life?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
A summary of some interesting stuff from the last few days Panorama's Hacking: Power, Corruption and Lies was broadcast last night, a good refreshers on the story so far, and the BBC revealed "NoW hacker Glenn Mulcaire 'breached witness protection'". That ties in with a couple of posts my regular Hackgate contributor put together, Witness Protection, Anyone? and Under Police Protection? - Maxine Carr, Derek Webb, and John Yates, the second one demonstrating John Yates has a lot to answer for. Murdoch may be questioned by the police in relation to potential corporate charges, with the Daily Beast reporting the FBI recovered 80,000 emails from the News Corp servers in New York, and Peter Jukes also reported Les Hinton, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson have already been interviewed under caution for corporate charges. On Monday we'll have a decision to retail Coulson and Goodman on the charges the jury couldn't decide on, and on Friday Coulson and the 5 defendants who plead guilty will be sentenced, along with senior executives Greg Miskiw, James Weatherup, and Neville Thurlbeck; Glenn Mulcaire, and Dan Evans. Keep in mind this is only Operation Weeting, there's also Elveden and Tuleta, with 12 more trials scheduled, and many charging decisions still outstanding. See this more as the end of the beginning than the beginning of the end. Nick Davies also put the boot into David Cameron with Five chances Cameron had to uncover the truth about Andy Coulson. It should be kept in mind the defence tried to get the trial thrown out because of Cameron's statement, so he dodged a huge bullet there. Those of you who use Twitter will be interested to know that the defence also presented a weekly ring-binder filled with Tweets and other posts on the internet they thought could get the case thrown out. Apparently the defence open with "There's been a Tweet.." on a near daily basis in an attempt to get the case thrown out. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 10:37 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 10:33
|
|