Chindie

Not by news international though. It looks like it was just someone hoping to cash in. They've been on about rebranding for a while, so it wasn't a huge shock they're throwing the paper to the wall. Indeed, just been clarified as being registered by an unknown party. The head office apparently turned to pandemonium - the staff were informed at the same time as the media, with Brooks allegedly present (who is supposed to have burst into tears), which lead to merry hell breaking out the Beeb reporter on the scene has heard. The paper's offices were earlier described as 'positively mutinous' in the last couple of days, with many staff demanding Brooks head.

The name 'The Sun on Sunday' has been registered in the last couple of days, apparently. Shock horror. The News of the World is dead, long live the New... The Sun on Sunday.

Any bets on what the inevitable replacement will be called? The Sun-day?

A lamb sacrificed in the hope the gods forget.

I'm not totally sold on it either. It looks a bit too... concept-y? still. It's exactly what a comic book artist would draw if someone said to them 'Right, in this scene, we need a Landrover, but a Landrover from 2050!'. And not in a good way. I can see an awful lot of people loving it... but not for me. It's not ugly per se, just not a looker. Landrover's traditionally always had a either a little style with their practical designs (the current Disco - practical, but has a reserved sense of style too, it's not just a work horse, it's wearing a nice suit with it) or were quietly stylish (the original run of the current Range Rover model). This thing is a bit brash.

Greenberg was the first man 5Live got word from from inside News International. He wasn't given a grilling, just asked a few telling questions, and he was flummoxed. But also managed to come across as an odious prick.

I didn't say it was raised in the thread . I just added it as an aside. I did think about opening a thread but it isn't really worth it, tisn't going anywhere.

I thought that was what you were getting at. I raised opposition to this line of thought earlier in the thread, Snowy posted a link to an excellent blog explaining the failure of such a point of view, and indeed the chaps above have shown the same objections to it. Don't fall into the trap of simply looking at the emotions. For justice to have been served, in this country, thankfully, the accused, no matter how heinous his previous convictions and no matter how clearly guilty he was, or how upsetting or distasteful it may be, has the right to present a defence. In this case, Bellfield put forth a defence that was indeed distressing, humiliating, and arguably at times could be considered deliberately vindictive... but there was evidence to allow that to be pursued as relevant and to have a fair trial, that was had to be done. The Dowlers seemed to have suggested they would have that right removed, and that is wrong. TheDon puts it a little bluntly above, but he's roundly right. Justice was only done because Bellfield was allowed to put forth that defence and by a jury of his peers, found lacking. The Dowlers suffered because of it, and perhaps the judge should have acted differently (the judge having the right to dismiss lines of enquiry if they become intent on humilation, and also has the right to dismiss much of those present at a trial should evidence become sensitive in nature).

Say it now Chindie, I suspect it'll be sub judice rather soon I meant from the people involved/slash people investigating it - just what Snowy has put here needs to be elaborated on by those who know more. All I could say on it from that snippet would probably best be summed up by 'What the ****...?!'.

Murky indeed. That sounds like something that requires rather more to be said about I feel.

Could you elaborate on that?

Other than 'Word Removed', I find the word filter a bit tedious too. 'I'm unoriginal, why do I even bother' is for the 'IB4TL' meme.

Superb cast lined up for it too. Oldman, Strong, Hurt, Graham, Cumberbatch, Hardy...

He mentioned this on 5Live earlier. Apparently they are genuinely concerned that more damning stuff may come out, though whether they're concerned because they know theres worse that they have done, or are just worried that more have gone on that they are unaware of is of course open to debate and your own personal level of cynicism. Myself, I suspect they know there are even more grim skeletons in the closet.

I think that is no longer the first, second or even third thought of anyone atop an organization. I think that the first thought is how to stop something coming out, the second finding someone to lay the blame on and the third on how to distance oneself from that person/those persons. We've seen it in politics, in the media and in business with ever increasing frequency over the last few decades. Retiring to the study with a gun is largely from a bygone era. Agreed. Although I think its more accurate for people in the public eye than not, of course. You'd think wide spread acknowledgment of their failure would encourage someone to consider their position more urgently. At least Coulson had the mind to quit, even if he claimed to have been unaware. Anyone achieving executive status should receive a single shot pistol, stored in a glass case in their office, for emergency cases requiring the moral falling on a sword.

Wade has contacted the Dowlers (and their lawyer) to say in effect she is sorry, and will investigate it to ensure 'justice is done', and thusly will not be resigning to ensure it is so. She also made sure to mention that these are allegations, even though it is alleged by the Beebs Robert Peston that News International are internally treating it is having definitely happened. They are also supposed to be worried that this isn't the worst thing that could come out. The brass neck on this woman is astounding. Even if she was unaware of it directly, its generally accepted that if you sit at the top of the tree, you fall when things beneath you go wrong.

Very off topic but I don't agree. By the accounts I have read, it was cross examination of evidence that had to be disclosed. That the line of defence was distasteful and more is not sufficient reason for rules to be changed or systems to be altered so that a defendant cannot run their defence along the lines they want. Here's a very interesting blog on the subject of the case - Justice: RIP. You always seem to manage to find a good blog on these kind of matters Darren . Suffice to say I agree.

They inferred quite heavily that Bellfield should have not have been able to defend himself in the traditions of our legal system. He is a vile man, and clearly guilty, and sadly he chose to defend himself on cruel and degrading matters that often had only fleeting relevance to the case, and had only initially arisen in the police investigation after her disappearance and were quickly dropped by the authorities - however they remained in the case file and thus could be called on to defend himself. Had he not used that line of defence, it would always remain in the case file and would always be ready for him to call on for an appeal in the future. Now, barring the discovery of new evidence, his defence is spent. It isn't the fault of the law that he chose to use particularly nasty and humiliating lines of defence, it is a fault of judge who let him continue that line of defence when it became clear it was becoming too much of a vindictive and cynical attack, or that the judge did not order the court cleared so that, as far as possible, such sensitive lines of 'inquiry' were kept out of the public eye. I don't agree with what he did in court. I don't like it. But demanding that the accused has the balance of law turned against them and preventing aspects of defence that are in some way (however small) relevant to the case, thus undermining the idea of a fair trail, is not something I'm ever going to agree with, no matter how it may be abused by some particularly detestable individuals. I won't be ashamed of that either. Anywho, back to another vile topic...

Trivium - And Sadness Will Sear into In a rockier mood.

I intend to keep much more of an eye on Wolfsburg next year.

Hearing this on the radio this morning I actually gave a sardonic laugh. Not because I find the act itself funny - the Dowlers lawyer is correct that it is a heinous act (as an aside, thats probably the first big public statement to come from the Dowlers in recent weeks that was bang on the money, given their comments inferring that a defendant shouldn't be able to er... defend... themselves... by the by anyway). I laughed because of just how despicable it was - it's cartoonishly vile. How they thought that that was permissable, acceptable, hell... just morally right (not that they give a shit about that) is beyond me. It's a clear a sign of a powerful entity just not giving a **** as it comes. More worrisome - it's a clear indication that Murdoch's evil empire doesn't give a **** about things that are comparatively trivial (on the grand scale of things, Dowler's death while a heinous crime and tragedy doesn't really matter), imagine what it's like for things that are much more wide reaching, especially given the influence this man and his empire has. All the more worrying that this bastard is only getting more powerful. And if anything hoping he pops his clogs won't help - his son is arguably worse, just doesn't have the power to wield. Yet.

Taarabt is pretty much the definition of a show pony imo.

Nope.

First trailer up for the big screen adaptation. It's got a bloody fantastic cast - Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch, Stephen Graham, John Hurt. Looking forward to it, nice that they've kept it to the original period setting too.

Sadly it looks like my dreams of seeing Hathaway in a leather/PVC catsuit are to be dashed - her Catwoman is allegedly going to be based around her being a thief, and so she's going to be wearing a tight 'tactical' suit, with goggles. Heres hoping she still looks hot.