RunRickyRun Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 It's conspiracy to pervert (not just pervert) so they face a maximum term of life imprisonment if found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted May 15, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 15, 2012 Things were much easier in the old days, they burned witches back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted May 15, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 15, 2012 Things were much easier in the old days, they burned witches back then. Hello Charlie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted May 15, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 15, 2012 Things were much easier in the old days, they burned witches back then. Hello Charlie! Have to admit you've lost me there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted May 15, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 15, 2012 Things were much easier in the old days, they burned witches back then. Hello Charlie! Have to admit you've lost me there. Oh, Rebekah's husband Charlie has made a statement that it's a witch hunt. It's not, of course. She'll get a fair trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 She'll get a fair trial. :crylaugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 15, 2012 Author Share Posted May 15, 2012 Oh, Rebekah's husband Charlie has made a statement that it's a witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 She'll get a fair trial. :crylaugh: She'd know all about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 She'll get a fair trial. :crylaugh: She'd know all about that... only problem being that Sun Headline is from Dec 2010 and she left the paper in 2009 :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted May 15, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 15, 2012 Well quite. Hence the irony of Charlie Brooks claiming it's a witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 only problem being that Sun Headline is from Dec 2010 and she left the paper in 2009 :-) :? She was chief exec of News International at the time. Do I need to point out which newspapers they owned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Surely by that logic that would make Murdoch responsible for that headline not Brooks ? Dominic Mohan ( editor of The Sun) was called into Leveson to talk specifically about that headline and apologised for it , one could assume as editor he was responsible for it ? To my knowledge Brooks wasn't questioned about the headline during her time at Leveson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Surely by that logic that would make Murdoch responsible for that headline not Brooks ? Glad you're coming round to my way of thinking (Just like the other indiscretions) Mohan may have made the final call, but this decision would have been shaped by the corporate environment set by those higher up the tree. There was certainly no rebuke from the executive at the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Glad you're coming round to my way of thinking Laughing :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Surely by that logic that would make Murdoch responsible for that headline not Brooks ? Glad you're coming round to my way of thinking (Just like the other indiscretions) Mohan may have made the final call, but this decision would have been shaped by the corporate environment set by those higher up the tree. There was certainly no rebuke from the executive at the time... As Murdoch told Leveson, if you want to know his thinking, look at the Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Not sure if this is in the correct thread but Oh dear oh dear Piers Morgan The net is closing, oh dear, be worried piers be worried Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 I should think Cameron has more cause to be worried. Mind you, he has so many other things to be worried about, it's perhaps hard to give priority to this one. A fool and a dunce, he will be played along a little more before the tories give him the knife. Six months? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share Posted May 25, 2012 Michel and Smith come across as two horribly slimey people. It would appear that when there is evidence to back up Michel's claims about what Smith said (e.g. the 'too brilliant' text) he puts it down to flippancy (and being 'too jokey' a la Michel's testimony) otherwise he is trying to paint the picture that Michel's emails and comments didn't actually represent what he had said. Having watched Michel yesterday, I thought him to be a rather unreliable witness. Watching Smith, I wonder whether it may be sensible to revise that view somewhat. Taking the two together, I think it's more of a case of who is lying least rather than who is being most truthful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 This is quite interesting: body language expert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 Blair still perfecting the art of lying I see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts