As a nation, we deserve the Press that we are prepared to pay for. People buy this rubbish so ... there you go. In my own case, that would mean no press at all
I didn't think it too bad. A bit depraved but nothing too bad. There is another way of looking at this and that is that neither of them had to stand there on the steps and attempt to make any statement in that manner at all. She made no attempt to answer any of the questions, nor was she going to. To me, the meekness that she put on display was entirely deliberate and seemed rather faux. She more than anyone else knows how the press works and so what happened yesterday was to my mind to be expected. I can only conclude therefore that what happened yesterday was entirely deliberate. They were not doorstepped. It was entirely orchestrated and announced. I wouldn't be surprised if she returned to the cottage yesterday, shut the door and pissed herself laughing. Not a single word of contrition was uttered. I'd have thought somebody as astute as her would have known that this wouldn't have done her any favours in the public eye. One of her most successful lines of defence it seems was simply to play the most incompetent editor/chief exec/director imaginable and claim she knew nothing. About anything. I wouldn't be surprised if this then will be used by her at some point in the future to conveniently claim that none of the wrongdoing that took place at the News of the world &c (whether morally reprehensible or otherwise) and the way that it operated had anything to do with her at all because she was simply incompetent and trusted others. My own view is that any self-respecting person would have apologised for an organisation that conducted itself in the most grotesque manner whilst they were in charge. The only regret uttered was by Charlie Brooks for the situation in which Andy Coulson found himself. He said he felt sad for Andy Coulson. Not for the people he hacked, but just for the man himself. A little Piers Morgan's sob stories appearance on ITV in a few months time and that'll be it. Job done.
I am in no way condoning her part of this whatsoever but which question out of the barrage of questions all asked at the same time should she of answered? and Charlie B didnt say that he felt sad for Andy C,he made a particular point of saying when pushed on this that he just felt sad.As for what they will say behind closed doors,that we will never know unless there is a nice little bug somewhere......My point is not whether she should have been found guilty or not but whether the behaviour of the assembled press was acceptable with lots of leading questions and inferred answers.I feel sure that they were instructed not to admit anything by the lawers incase of posible further pending actions.
fu.k her and all her ilk, poor mr and mrs dowler and every one else that had there privacy invaded. scum bags.
Innocent or guilty, you can hardly feel sorry for Brooks at her treatment by the press. After all, she condoned dishing it out for years. Seems a fitting punishment to me.
Look again at post #65. The planet I'm on is the one inhabited by the people and professions mentioned there. My personal means are of course far less than any of those listed, but that is entirely beside the point. Maybe yours are too - but that is also beside the point. So try this: all GP doctors in the UK NHS get salaries over £100K (and Consultants a lot more). Does that mean they are overpaid? Does that mean being a doctor is a gravy train? If a newspaper picked on a Doctor Smith, added up the salaries and pension Dr S would be entitled to over his lifetime, and published a spinning, smearing article about it - would that be OK?
Murdoch is in a position to choose whether to take his emoluments as a salary or as shares. Your position seems to be that if he chooses to take little or no personal salary, but instead to take his billions in the form of company assets, you are prepared to say that those billions do not count as "pay". I doubt if many people would agree. I never said I held Messrs Blair or Kinnock in high regard. When I read articles or posts distorting, smearing, spinning, and lying about them (or about anybody else for that matter), I sometimes try to redress the balance by introducing some facts and some perspective. Some people, it seems, struggle to cope with this. I am not very interested in endorsing everybody's conventional "received wisdom".
It is understandable that any person facing criminal charges would be advised not to apologise publicly before or during trial, because that might be interpreted as an admission of guilt and hence prejudice their defence. After acquittal, however, that consideration no longer applies. R & C Brooks could have apologised fully (and who knows, maybe even sincerely), and expressed regrets for what happened. But no.
Unfortunately the jury found her 'Not Guilty'. Regardless of whether or not anyone feels that is just or not, the fact remains she has proved her innocence to the satisfaction of the courts. For now. We have to respect the jury's decision.
Surely if she was innocent of all charges, none of it was her fault, so you wouldn't expect her to apologise for anything. An apology would be an admission of guilt - unwise. She probably knows she isn't held in high regard by anyone apart from Murdoch. Coming out with a few platitudes outside the court would do little to change that. She was almost certainly well advised to keep her gob shut.
"Proved her innocence" - I think not, no defendant has to prove their innocence. What has happened is that the prosecution has failed to adduce enough evidence to prove her guilt, hence her acquittal.
