tonyh29 Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Yeah a nobbled jury sounds much more plausible ...'Much more plausible' than what? That she was whiter than white or that she and her minions (and any further help she/they may have had) were bloody good at getting rid of anything that may have confirmed her guilt? A previous poster who said he followed the trial (so I'm assuming that was the details not just the dates) thought the difference was a single piece of evidence against Coulson. The inference I drew was that had the evidence not been disposed of so well then she and others might have had a more difficult case to answer (hoping that's on the right side of the line for VT!). jury's only act on evidence presented so in other words reached the right decision ... It's interesting that those ( by which I mean the usual suspects ) jumping up and down with indignation here , were the same ones telling us to respect Chilcot because clearly it was correct and Blair really really didn't lie and is a nice man who is just understood They can't have their cake and make it disappear in Diego Garcia as the saying goesblimey ahhh but labour we are making up for lost time Is it Groundhog Day you did the same post twice in a row 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted June 25, 2014 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Because the expectation I'm referring to was made at the end of the trial, not before proceedings began. Also I'm talking about the prosecuting QC, not the CPS whose decision it is whether to prosecute or not and their parameters are that they proceed if they consider that there is a reasonable expectation of a win, not a definite win. And it is very easy to argue that this trial was most definitely in the public interest, regardless of the result. Doesn't sound like a very professional thing for a silk like Edis to be discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Here's an excellent take on why Brooks walked free. It's important to understand that the charges against her were not proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' Something else to remember is that a whole bunch of other people who were charged... pleaded guilty. Nice summary, thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 I do find it utterly astonishing that in a post-le Carre, post-Hillsborough, post-Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6, post-wmd, post-Snowden, post-just about everything we know about state lies and deception world, some people can actually think that saying "Oh, so you think there might be a CONSPIRACY!" is in some way either an argument, or something which lends credibility to their case by undermining that of their opponent. I really do have to agree with this. Nothing is more aggravating, because of it's determined ignorance, than dismissing something as a 'conspiracy theory'. Yes, it is a conspiracy theory. So what? Sometimes, people engage in conspiracies. Woodward and Bernstein had a conspiracy theory about Watergate - it was true. Investigators had a conspiracy theory about Enron's accounting methods and Arthur Andersen's document-shredding - those theories were true. Just because somebody's theory involves people conspiring, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. It doesn't mean that it did happen either, of course, but it's a nonsense to dismiss things simply by calling them 'conspiracy theories'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) I do find it utterly astonishing that in a post-le Carre, post-Hillsborough, post-Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6, post-wmd, post-Snowden, post-just about everything we know about state lies and deception world, some people can actually think that saying "Oh, so you think there might be a CONSPIRACY!" is in some way either an argument, or something which lends credibility to their case by undermining that of their opponent. I really do have to agree with this. Nothing is more aggravating, because of it's determined ignorance, than dismissing something as a 'conspiracy theory'. Yes, it is a conspiracy theory. So what? Sometimes, people engage in conspiracies. Woodward and Bernstein had a conspiracy theory about Watergate - it was true. Investigators had a conspiracy theory about Enron's accounting methods and Arthur Andersen's document-shredding - those theories were true. Just because somebody's theory involves people conspiring, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. It doesn't mean that it did happen either, of course, but it's a nonsense to dismiss things simply by calling them 'conspiracy theories'. I can't help but wonder if anyone actually read my post rather just decided to wade in The people you named however did investigative work to uncover stories... Not circulate stuff off twitter Edited June 26, 2014 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Which post? This one? "As you believe flight mh370 was kidnapped by the yanks and flown to Diego Garcia you must have a good conspiracy theory as to how a jury found her not guilty ?" Which was an inaccurate statement of what peterms believes, which he disputed in his next comment? Or was it perhaps the post when he listed some examples of real-life conspiracies (Hillsborough / Guildford 4 / Birmingham 6) and you replied by talking about people who believe Elvis isn't dead? Come off it mate. I had to chuckle at this as well: "The people you named however did investigative work to uncover stories... Not circulate stuff off twitter" Nick Davies has done more investigative work into News International and phone hacking than anybody else in the world. Here was his article after the verdict, carefully explaining which questions are still unanswered from the trial: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/24/-sp-andy-coulson-verdict-questions-remain-for-david-cameron-and-others Here was his article summarising the entire trial (note especially the 'unheard evidence' section, including those parts that couldn't be heard because of parliamentary privilege): http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/25/-sp-phone-hacking-trial-rebekah-brooks-rupert-murdoch 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 26, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted June 26, 2014 Cameron's mate: guilty. Blair's mate: not guilty. Tony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 26, 2014 Author Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) I'm not sure Couslon could be described as Cameron's mate. The Brookses would most definitely be Cameron's mates (as well as Mrs being Blair's). Edited June 26, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted June 26, 2014 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Cameron's mate: guilty. Blair's mate: not guilty. Tony? I don't think Tony's guilty either. Free the Sheppey 1!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Missed all the fun and games on this and haven't had time to read the various summaries posted here, but.... Glad Coulson convicted, amazed and disappointed Brooks was not. However if a jury that sat for 8 months listening to all the evidence wasn't satisfied she was guilty as charged, it's the correct outcome. Oh, MH370 definitely hijacked or similar by persons unknown - to me - IMHO. Something or someone on board was very important and worth the effort. You do have to say hats off to whoever did it though, a stunning job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Author Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) 18 months for Coulson according to the Grauniad's ticker bar and the Beeb. Edited July 4, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 4, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 4, 2014 Fall guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 4, 2014 Author Share Posted July 4, 2014 From what I've read, he'll likely be out wearing a 'tag' in about four and a half months. At which time he'll be extradited to Scotland for the perjury trial, I guess? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted July 4, 2014 Moderator Share Posted July 4, 2014 Well i wouldn't be surprised if he is compensated in some way, by a person or persons for his time and silence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 7, 2014 Author Share Posted July 7, 2014 Luck boy, Andy. Nice trip up to Scotland in his first month inside:linkThe former No 10 spin doctor Andy Coulson was served on Monday with an indictment relating to a charge of alleged perjury at the trial of Tommy Sheridan.The former News of the World editor will appear at a preliminary hearing on 6 August, the Crown Office, Scotland's prosecution authority, confirmed.The charge of perjury relates to evidence the former News of the World editor gave during Sheridan's own trial for perjury in December 2010.Coulson originally appeared in court in relation to Sheridan, a Scottish socialist politcian, in June last year.Coulson had given evidence over two days as a defence witness during Tommy Sheridan's perjury trial at the high court in Glasgow. Coulson was closely questioned by Sheridan, who conducted his own defence. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Yet another example of why Murdoch should not be allowed to run any sort of media outlet - the Tulisa trial collapses because of the Sun telling lies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 or inconsistencies. let me tell you i know someone that knows tulisa and she is a right little turd, she is capable of doing something like that but i agree about your point about murdoch too powerful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 or inconsistencies. let me tell you i know someone that knows tulisa and she is a right little turd, she is capable of doing something like that but i agree about your point about murdoch too powerful since 2010 fixed the last bit for you not really followed the story but it sounds like she bragged about her ability to get drugs and then after the trial collpased denied she ever used or had access to them the Sun guy may have been a liar but possibly he isn't the only one in this instance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 or inconsistencies. let me tell you i know someone that knows tulisa and she is a right little turd, she is capable of doing something like that but i agree about your point about murdoch too powerful since 2010 fixed the last bit for you not really followed the story but it sounds like she bragged about her ability to get drugs and then after the trial collpased denied she ever used or had access to them the Sun guy may have been a liar but possibly he isn't the only one in this instance The fact that her co-defendent pleaded guilty at the first opportunity implies she had "access" to drugs but its harldy "beyond all resaonable doubt" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Nice Sun front page today. Bit of hate, bit of football, bit of common touch for them that goes camping, world news reduced to a para, and most importantly, 90% of the page taken up by some random nonsense aimed at distracting attention from anything more important. Nice one, Rupe! Oh, but your sub-eds can't punctuate a 6-word sentence. Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts