Rebecca Brooks receives 10.8 Million payoff. Really!!

[Steffan]

coyft said:

Steffan said:

I would suggest that am immediate high court judicial review on the legality of that decision by the Directors and the flagrant disregard for rewarding criminality would very possibly succeed.

I think you're getting your knickers in a twist. Firstly how can you bring an immediate action when she hasn't been convicted of anything?

Secondly how do you know that there isn't a claw back clause if she is found guilty?

IMO it comes down to inappropriate action by those responsible. The staff and directors who have agreed this. If the money is paid prior to the trial getting any back what then?

PLC Directors have a substantial duty of care. Which sadly, has been utterly disregarded in UK big business for some time. I believe this offer comfortably exceeds any reasonable assessment of the discharge of that duty. I am sickened by the entire appalling mess at News International.

Given the very serious charges have been laid against Rebecca Brooks I believe that such an offer is simply an appalling and very probably criminal act in itself. No one can be above law.

[Steffan]

coyft said:

Steffan said:

coyft said:

Steffan said:

I would suggest that am immediate high court judicial review on the legality of that decision by the Directors and the flagrant disregard for rewarding criminality would very possibly succeed.

I think you're getting your knickers in a twist. Firstly how can you bring an immediate action when she hasn't been convicted of anything?

Secondly how do you know that there isn't a claw back clause if she is found guilty?

IMO it comes down to inappropriate action by those responsible. The staff and directors who have agreed this. If the money is paid prior to the trial getting any back what then?

PLC Directors have a substantial duty of care. Which sadly, has been utterly disregarded in UK big business for some time. I believe this offer comfortably exceeds any reasonable assessment of the discharge of that duty. I am sickened by the entire appalling mess at News International.

Given the very serious charges have been laid against Rebecca Brooks I believe that such an offer is simply an appalling and very probably criminal act in itself. No one can be above law.

You are being hysterical. She isn't above the law, she is currently being tried in a court of law. If she's cleared of all criminal charges she'll keep the money, if she's convicted I have no doubt there will be a claw back clause.

You appear to be missing my point.

Which is that no such award should be agreed by any PLC director when the individual concerned has already been charged with a number of conspiracy offences within the organisation in which the offences occurred. PLC Directors should never act in this manner.

This award should never have been made. It is a slap in the face for the parents of Millie Dowler and every other individual damaged by the affair and the criminality involved. The woman has been charged with a number of offences all within News International. This is simply wrong and IMO unlawful.

Others have suggested that is smacks of a cover up. That is an entirely reasonable view IMO and demonstrates why this is fundamentally wrong.

[johnfm]

Steffan said:

coyft said:

Steffan said:

I would suggest that am immediate high court judicial review on the legality of that decision by the Directors and the flagrant disregard for rewarding criminality would very possibly succeed.

I think you're getting your knickers in a twist. Firstly how can you bring an immediate action when she hasn't been convicted of anything?

Secondly how do you know that there isn't a claw back clause if she is found guilty?

IMO it comes down to inappropriate action by those responsible. The staff and directors who have agreed this. If the money is paid prior to the trial getting any back what then?

PLC Directors have a substantial duty of care. Which sadly, has been utterly disregarded in UK big business for some time. I believe this offer comfortably exceeds any reasonable assessment of the discharge of that duty. I am sickened by the entire appalling mess at News International.

Given the very serious charges have been laid against Rebecca Brooks I believe that such an offer is simply an appalling and very probably criminal act in itself. No one can be above law.

Are you for real?

Judicial review? For a contractual agreement between a company and an individual?

Compromise agreement a crime?

Your hysteria seems to know no bounds.

[Steffan]

johnfm said:

Steffan said:

coyft said:

Steffan said:

I would suggest that am immediate high court judicial review on the legality of that decision by the Directors and the flagrant disregard for rewarding criminality would very possibly succeed.

I think you're getting your knickers in a twist. Firstly how can you bring an immediate action when she hasn't been convicted of anything?

Secondly how do you know that there isn't a claw back clause if she is found guilty?

IMO it comes down to inappropriate action by those responsible. The staff and directors who have agreed this. If the money is paid prior to the trial getting any back what then?

PLC Directors have a substantial duty of care. Which sadly, has been utterly disregarded in UK big business for some time. I believe this offer comfortably exceeds any reasonable assessment of the discharge of that duty. I am sickened by the entire appalling mess at News International.

Given the very serious charges have been laid against Rebecca Brooks I believe that such an offer is simply an appalling and very probably criminal act in itself. No one can be above law.

Are you for real?

Judicial review? For a contractual agreement between a company and an individual?

Compromise agreement a crime?

Your hysteria seems to know no bounds.

That is my view. I do not regard the 10.5 million settlement as either fair or reasonable or indeed lawful. Presumably you do.

There is a steadily increasing trend for the likes of Ms Brooks to be above the law. I do not accept that trend. That is in effect what has transpired here. I do not accept this is a reasonable outcome.

Do you really think that it is reasonable for an award of this size to be agreed whilst serious criminal charges remain unanswered? This is a lottery win, not a reasonable settlement. It us an odious affair.

[unrepentant]

Steffan said:

IMO it comes down to inappropriate action by those responsible. The staff and directors who have agreed this. If the money is paid prior to the trial getting any back what then?

PLC Directors have a substantial duty of care. Which sadly, has been utterly disregarded in UK big business for some time. I believe this offer comfortably exceeds any reasonable assessment of the discharge of that duty. I am sickened by the entire appalling mess at News International.

Given the very serious charges have been laid against Rebecca Brooks I believe that such an offer is simply an appalling and very probably criminal act in itself. No one can be above law.

No public money was involved, she got what she was owed under the terms of her service contract. It's nothing to do with you or anyone else except the shareholders of NI. It's certainly got nothing to do with "the law".

I'm guessing you've never been near a PLC boardroom?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

It's a private company and they can pay who they like what they like. None of my business.

If people don't like it, stop buying their products.

[Jasandjules]

Why are people suggesting that they would claw back the money?

[TEKNOPUG]

They'll be nothing left to claw back once the lawyers have had their feed.

[Eric Mc]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It's a private company.

It's not a private company - it's aa PUBLIC company - as in Public Limited Company (PLC).

The rules surrounding the behaviour of directors and the decisions they make in PLCs are much tighter than for simple private limited companies.

However, I don't think it is the authorities who would have an issue with the size of the payout but if I was a shareholder I certainly would.

[chimster]

I agree with Steffan. There is a relationship between her performance and responsiblities in her role and the charges against her. Why should it be necessary for her to be paid prior to the resolution of her court case? Why not wait, unless there are ulterior motives. It is just Murdoch sticking two fingers up to the system in my view and there should be no surprise that this gets up a few noses. Does he care? No.

[kowalski655]

Or is she getting set up to get sent down. I know they shouldn't think about it, but would a jury be happy to let her off if they knew she was getting 11 mil when she walks free. Can't see it making her too popular to them,or people that may have evidence against her. It may just tip the balance.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Eric Mc said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It's a private company.

It's not a private company - it's aa PUBLIC company - as in Public Limited Company (PLC).

The rules surrounding the behaviour of directors and the decisions they make in PLCs are much tighter than for simple private limited companies.

However, I don't think it is the authorities who would have an issue with the size of the payout but if I was a shareholder I certainly would.

Yes, fair point, what I meant is that it's not a government/taxpayer owned company. It's a matter for the board to decide and the shareholders to complain or not as they choose. Bottom line is, as I'm not a shareholder, it's none of my business.

If I felt that strongly about it, I'd cancel my Sky subscription. But I don't, so I won't. But those that are furious are free to do so.

[johnfm]

Steffan said:

That is my view. I do not regard the 10.5 million settlement as either fair or reasonable or indeed lawful. Presumably you do.

There is a steadily increasing trend for the likes of Ms Brooks to be above the law. I do not accept that trend. That is in effect what has transpired here. I do not accept this is a reasonable outcome.

Do you really think that it is reasonable for an award of this size to be agreed whilst serious criminal charges remain unanswered? This is a lottery win, not a reasonable settlement. It us an odious affair.

Of course we can be 'outraged' - but it not really our business.


Not sure how you think it can be unlawful to be honest

[WeirdNeville]

TEKNOPUG said:

They'll be nothing left to claw back once the lawyers have had their feed.

News Intenational set aside a furrther £17 million for legal fees for her and others implicated. The £10.8 mill it would seem is for Brooks alone.

[Eric Mc]

johnfm said:

Steffan said:

That is my view. I do not regard the 10.5 million settlement as either fair or reasonable or indeed lawful. Presumably you do.

There is a steadily increasing trend for the likes of Ms Brooks to be above the law. I do not accept that trend. That is in effect what has transpired here. I do not accept this is a reasonable outcome.

Do you really think that it is reasonable for an award of this size to be agreed whilst serious criminal charges remain unanswered? This is a lottery win, not a reasonable settlement. It us an odious affair.

Of course we can be 'outraged' - but it not really our business.


Not sure how you think it can be unlawful to be honest

There could be provisions in law to prevent payouts to senior figures of a PLC whilst they are under criminal charge. I don't know enough about PLC regulations to be honest. The fact the Bernie Ecclestone shied away from puting F1 into a UK PLC many years ago leads me to believe that he realised there were too many restrictions involved for his liking.

Even if it isn't an unlawful payout, it does show the utter lack of morals, ethics or whatever you want to call them prevelant in the Murdoch empire.

As I keep saying, is merely obeying the law good enough.

[London424]

Eric Mc said:

There could be provisions in law to prevent payouts to senior figures of a PLC whilst they are under criminal charge. I don't know enough about PLC regulations to be honest. The fact the Bernie Ecclestone shied away from puting F1 into a UK PLC many years ago leads me to believe that he realised there were too many restrictions involved for his liking.

Even if it isn't an unlawful payout, it does show the utter lack of morals, ethics or whatever you want to call them prevelant in the Murdoch empire.

As I keep saying, is merely obeying the law good enough.

Those nasty Murdochs...they should be paragons of virtue like in the BBC

[Eric Mc]

EVERYONE should behave better.

Good behaviour is not based on how you compare with others. It is based on an intrinsic view on what is right and wrong.

And it is most definitely not based on what your lawyers tell you is legal and what is illegal.

[turbobloke]

London424 said:

Those nasty Murdochs...they should be paragons of virtue like in the BBC

Clearly PHers are always good boys and girls

[XCP]

turbobloke said:

London424 said:

Those nasty Murdochs...they should be paragons of virtue like in the BBC

Clearly PHers are always good boys and girls

for 11 million quid I'll be whatever you want...

[London424]

Eric Mc said:

EVERYONE should behave better.

Good behaviour is not based on how you compare with others. It is based on an intrinsic view on what is right and wrong.

And it is most definitely not based on what your lawyers tell you is legal and what is illegal.

I agree, but I'm also realistic. If you object so strongly boycott the products and services.

I think you'll be living a pretty lonely and boring existence because unfortunately people are involved in business and for every product or service you do buy, I would imagine that in pretty short order you'd be able to find questionable business practices.