I doubt they spent it on buns and coffee for the jurors, so I can only assume it went into the pockets of the legal profession - unless it costs a lot to rent the Old Bailey.
The Old Bailey does not cost the Ministry of Justice or the Courts & Tribunals Service anything at all, because all the bills are paid by the owners, who are the Corporation of the City of London. This is unique to the Bailey, does not apply to any other court.
Phone hacking carries a maximum of two years, as he was of previous good character what are the thoughts on sentence? Would think at least a year to 18 months.
Thinking along the lines of Max Clifford here, the sentence of whom many didn't predict correctly. High profile case and royal hacking too. I think he's been paid to take the fall and will come out to ten mil or so in the caymans.
Good question. Since the case is unique, there is little precedent to go on. In the light of the Prime Minister's outrageous intervention (before all the verdicts were in) and the judge's complaints about this, perhaps he will go light on sentence. I think I will take a stab at: 12 months prison, not suspended. [This assumes there is no further trial of the charges on which the jury were undecided.]
Community Service. 600 hrs 4per sat & sun, clearing old biddies gardens and cleaning the verges on m25.
"The hacking trial has cost £1.745m so far, the Crown Prosecution Service said. The figures cover the period up to 31 May" According to the BBC
The Daily Flail quotes £1200 trillion trillion and rising. It's recommending hoarding and ritual suicide for all its readers.
Glenn Mulcaire and Clive goodman received I think 8 and 4 months respectively when found guilty of previous charges in relation to actual hacking. I have visions of Coulson's counsel citing this thread at his sentencing. Rebecca brooks had nowt up her sleeve over the jury. She could not have. The jury needed to be sure of guilt to convict and couldn't be. The evidence was merely batted away by the defence. It's a slightly specious argument but the fact that the jury did not find her guilty does not mean that they might not have thought that she had involvement in it even if they were unanimous in their verdict She was smart. Hard drives missing, laptops missing, blackberry's missing, iPad's missing - that's not to say these things contained incriminating evidence but begs the question as to how they went missing sometime even when these things had been put into storage for safe keeping. She ordered a complete deletion of years worth of emails at the News of the world. And the organisation had plenty of warning, the many failed investigations etc, that something was afoot regarding these charges. Any TV investigation you care to look at say as an organisation they were completely intertwined with individuals at the Met and Scotland Yard. If I were up to similar activity and I knew that complaints were repeatedly being made to the Met and the CPS about my company's conduct, I think I would order a clean sweep of the email system and the destruction of old hard drives too. There is so much about the defence account that I found sickening. For example, in giving his reasons as to why he wanted a bag going missing Charlie Brooks said he wished to avoid a "Jaqui Smith moment". It was a deliberate comparison in order that the press would pick up on that direct quote, have to explain the Jaqui Smith saga again to give the quote some context, and then in doing so divert attention from the rest of his evidence. It made a convenient headline when the truth of the matter was that the circumstances bore no relation to Jaqui Smith and whilst Jaqui Smith was a prominent politician & civil servant answerable to the public, Charlie Brooks is just a twat. Given the shit that his wife was facing I would've thought the discovery of a load of what he termed "smut" in a black bin liner would've been the least of her worries. Still, this is the way that the evidence went and the CPS, with only circumstantial evidence and limited resources in comparison, had no way to counter it. Much of the electronic data went missing and there were very few records of telephone or email exchanges in regards to a lot of the activity. It's fair to say that the defence appeared to destroy the evidence that the prosecution brought forward with regards to the hacking charges against her and the military contact that she was supposed to have paid - it made sense that this must have been an active military contact but there was certainly nothing proposed by the prosecution that said she absolutely knew that at the time. The fact that she admitted years before in a Parliamentary select committee hearing that she had paid police officers for information was inadmissible because the evidence is covered by parliamentary privilege and could not be considered by the jury. The defence also destroyed the prosecution evidence that she was involved in the voice hacking of Milly Dowler in particular referring to the prosecutions' confusion of the timelines involved. Again, the circumstantial evidence was very strong but it was just that. Given all the other interests and campaigns it's surprising to say the least that she knew nothing of it as she claims. Given the circumstances around that and their contact with Surrey police, it's clear they knew they were above the law.
You must have laughed like hyena circling an unattended bucket of KFC chicken wings when you saw the link from the Express - i thought that might amuse. It is easy to throw a few jibes at the Express - easy discredit, everyone thinks its a comic. You manage to get the word Express three times into the first paragraph, in case anyone did not spot that. As for ‘why, why, why ‘ - were you listening to Delilah? As for your statement “patently nonsense made up’ article, presumably all these made it up as well… Kinnocks have six state pensions worth £185,000 per year, says think tank - Telegraph Revealed: How the Kinnocks have enjoyed an astonishing £10m ride on the EU gravy train | Mail Online Even the home boys in the valley …. Campaign highlights Kinnocks' £10m EU earnings - Wales Online So they all made it up did they? Now thats a conspiracy. If you actually read the article, it is based on research and estimations from a think tank called Open Europe, nothing wrong with that sort of research and discussion - but you did not seem to want to mention that - strange. Now i have not done any due diligence on Open Europe, so they could be left wing, right wing, or centre forward Wayne Rooney looney, but the figures they come up with are interesting, and K’s didn't appear to want to correct them, if they are that wrong. Are the expenses controls in Brussels that good, covering significant travel and international working situations across numerous cultures. i am not so sure. No-one has convinced me. They are ‘entitled to claim’ , how much is evidence/receipt based on actual expenditure to verify, and checked - after all we trust our politicians on their expenses claims don't we? Here is the BBC - did they make this up? BBC NEWS | UK | Euro MP expenses 'can reach £1m' Ive read the four words in my post several times, but strangely nowhere can i find anything that states i called them dishonest. I am sure that Ks have only claimed what they are entitled to claim ( note- that is different to ‘reimbursed for their expenditure’, as you state). I have not, and do not state they are dishonest - lets be clear about that. And if you think that, then you have gone off at a significant tangent. Speaking for myself - other posters comments along similar veins speak for themselves - i am not swayed by your assertion that they 'chose politics and public service- hence their fairly modest means’ . As if they did us a service. I’d like to know what your measure of “modest means” is, in the context of the sorts of sums they are likely to have accumulated through this public service. I know what ‘modest means’ is to me, and the UK average wage/pension, and i suspect Kinnocks ‘modest means ‘ is some way ahead of that. So - simple question - what is your ‘fairly modest means’? Something measurable would be nice. P.S If you recount a recent lunch with Ks, consuming thin gruel, laverbread and weak tea from a tin mug- that is NOT a measure!
is that an Elvis Costello song?........... (name that tune) I am not letting anyone have it - merely putting forward a clarifying POV, highlighting certain aspects of interpretation and comment ( getting in an oblique Tom Jones reference as well - always a winner) - and asking a simple question. Simple questions get the best answers, and i am a simple soul. I kept getting told that at school - took me ages to work out it wasn't a compliment.
It was an obscure reference to a phrase used in the shooting of a policeman in the 50's. The person who uttered it was hung whilst the person who pulled the trigger was not due to being under age at the time of the offence.
