So Coulson was guilty and Brooks wasn't. Do we feel relieved that the editor of a major national paper and Rupert Murdoch's chosen one's integrity is in fact complete, or do we feel vaguely disquieted that she "managed to get off" the rap? Does being a "friend" of the PM raise the possibility that that might have had a bearing? Put it another way: are we happy that justice has established her innocence - move along, nothing to see here, or sort of worried that justice just hasn't been done? The latter would imply we know something the court, who heard all the evidence, didn't. I'm torn between the two possibilities.
who really knows what goes on at that level. bit disappointed she didn't go down. how people can run a business like that at that level and not know how the information is gathered is utter bolox.
They are both friends of the PM, but at least one of them had to be a scapegoat....... ....In my opinion there should be two scapegoats.....
'Proving' what someone did or didn't know, can be difficult if its word of mouth/nothing written - who knows what etc. I am slightly uneasy at the verdict ( nothing tangible you understand, just natural suspicion of people operating in these nefarious circles) , but when push comes to shove, the jury system and evidence-based process has completed due course. Guilt has not been proven. Apparently.
if an employee leaves a wheel loose and some one gets hurt, i am responsible. i think it's me that will be prosecuted.
Lol not on Ross Kemp apparently that's why he left the ginger minge. He later said she was a sly vindictive bitch.
I've followed this quite closely since the start (well, followed the media, papers and most of the live reporting on twitter of the evidence to the jury). The case against her for phone hacking seemed quite weak. The case against Andy Coulson for phone hacking seemed very strong. Whilst the evidence for perverting the course of justice against Rebekah Brooks et al was for the most part circumstantial, from what I've read, I find the not guilty verdict a tough call. I thought the evidence in respect of paying a public official was also quite strong and in that respect I would think this verdict a tough call also. From what I've read it appears to me that Andy Coulson just wasn't as slick as Rebekah Brooks. He tended to get his hands a little dirtier and left too many trails in doing so. From the evidence that was reported it would seem to me that Rebekah Brooks was always very mindful to cover her tracks. Prosecutors were always on an uphill struggle however to prove the charges against her and convince the jury. Something tells me that we may not yet have see the end of the whole phone hacking saga with other relevant revelations perhaps popping up in time involving other personnel and perhaps at the newspapers etc. From the evidence reported, she comes across as a foul person. Still, I wasn't there to hear all this so what the hell do I know. Levenson report is also a real eye-opener. How these people are ever allowed to get anywhere near our governments and politicians is absolutely beyond me.
A bloke with nothing good to say about his ex-girlfriend? Whatever next? I'm perhaps a little surprised that Brooks got off but really ... I'm not.
The variables against Brooks are that she is either naive/stupid,or a very clever lady.The certainty in this case is that the legal teams involved have got their 'dues'.
Her character, whatever she is like (and I have no idea) wasn't the accusation here. Plenty of nasty people are innocent and nice people can commit crimes. She has been found innocent so unless any further charges come along, that's it. I respect the system and the jury because it's the best we have right now. If I was accused and found innocent of a crime then I'd expect to walk free and get on with life. Brooks deserves the same.
Neil Kinnock bravely stood up to Murdoch and the other newspaper proprietors; they crucified him; the voters swallowed the crap; and he lost the election of 1992. Leading politicians of all parties have learned the lesson from this, so ever since they have striven mightily to lick Murdoch's butt at all costs and call it ice-cream. It is ultimately up to the voters.
Kinnock...is that the same man that, along with his wife, slung principle and ideals down the road to chase and court cash in Europe? Best thing he ever did for his own personal wealth was get hammered in an election
I have no idea what you're talking about now ... unless this is a joke. How do you make out that NK "slung principles and ideals down the road"? Surely he has stuck to his principles more than almost anybody. And "chase cash"? Surely the Kinnocks could have made a fortune had they chosen to focus their lives on money making, but instead they chose politics and public service - hence their fairly modest means.
Equally he could have got a job as a coal miner serving the public and while having modest means........and with all those sheep around, she could have knitted pullovers.
"Fairly modest means" !? Compared to the Blairs perhaps, but various estimates suggest that the Kinnocks have benefitted to the tune of £5 million+ from their public sector sacrifices. They also live in a fashionable part of London and have enormous pensions, which if valued actuarially would also be worth millions (Glenys has a pension of £66K, and Neil has several, totalling considerably more, apparently)
Kinnock, now there was a windbag, he impressed initially but ultimately failed to deliver. He lost the election in 1992 because he celebrated the victory before the election was held, and the people were not prepared to be taken for granted. That is why he lost more than anything else, up to that point the polls had him a clear winner.
