Rebecca Brooks receives 10.8 Million payoff. Really!!

Rebecca Brooks receives 10.8 Million payoff. Really!!

Author
Discussion

Steffan

Original Poster:

10,362 posts

228 months

Wednesday 2nd September 2015
quotequote all
55palfers said:
Let's hope she has more of an idea of what's going on in the business than she did the last time she was in charge
Quite!

It has been apparent for some time that the position of Rebbecca Brooks is exceptionally strong within the Murdich empire. She has been cleared of all charges. Some of the charges such as those against her husband did seem to to be somewhat weak. Up to the Shareholders whether they allow this in the end. I rather think they will.

Mermaid

21,492 posts

171 months

Wednesday 2nd September 2015
quotequote all
Steffan said:
55palfers said:
Let's hope she has more of an idea of what's going on in the business than she did the last time she was in charge
Quite!

It has been apparent for some time that the position of Rebbecca Brooks is exceptionally strong within the Murdich empire. She has been cleared of all charges. Some of the charges such as those against her husband did seem to to be somewhat weak. Up to the Shareholders whether they allow this in the end. I rather think they will.
Peerage surely - recommended by her mate CMD

hidetheelephants

24,289 posts

193 months

Wednesday 2nd September 2015
quotequote all
Rude-boy said:
greygoose said:
Surprising she got a job given her lack of knowledge about what was going on there last time she was in charge.
Did you not get the memo? Having a selective memory and the ability to convince 12 people that one of the most ruthless businessmen on the planet will not only give, but let you keep, a job when you have absolutely no idea of what is going on on your watch is a prime asset.
She contradicted her own testimony by telling the Leveson inquiry that the NotW had conspired to corrupt many public servants. She should never be allowed to work in the UK media again, not even the Chipping Norton Bugle. If the Digger wants her to have a sinecure he can give her a job in New York or wherever.

The Don of Croy

5,995 posts

159 months

Thursday 3rd September 2015
quotequote all
Whilst the return of the scary ginger leader raises many hackles, where was the outcry over the Mirror Group's record damages pay out in May?

During that trial it was heard that the Mirror hacking activity dwarfed Murdoch's operation.

Has there been wholesale vilification of Trinity Mirror Group?

hidetheelephants

24,289 posts

193 months

Thursday 3rd September 2015
quotequote all
The outrage bus was getting some work done, so no-one could be bothered; the Mirror is notionally left wing so in the eyes of the BBC can do no wrong relatively.

EskimoArapaho

5,135 posts

135 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
Oh dear, someone's not very happy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdXZdcC_KiE

And he must know where the bodies are buried. And one of the YT comments is from a lawyer for victims of phone hacking, wanting more info.

Perhaps Murdoch should have spread some of his money a bit wider?

DJRC

23,563 posts

236 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
I'm in awe of Ginger Loon, I really am.

I love the way she butt fked everyone, screwed everyone over and come up with even more dosh in the bank and pukka job. Absolute legend smile And she pisses off Middle England!

Countdown

39,854 posts

196 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
The outrage bus was getting some work done, so no-one could be bothered; the Mirror is notionally left wing so in the eyes of the BBC can do no wrong relatively.
Surprised Sky didn't get their outrage bus out..... hehe

Derek Smith

45,654 posts

248 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
EskimoArapaho said:
Oh dear, someone's not very happy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdXZdcC_KiE

And he must know where the emails are buried. And one of the YT comments is from a lawyer for victims of phone hacking, wanting more info.

Perhaps Murdoch should have spread some of his money a bit wider?
Fixed that for you. If only, eh?

kev1974

4,029 posts

129 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
Brooks and Murdoch must be pretty sure he's got nothing on them, to have felt that he only deserved a redundancy payment of £30k. We shall see.

Mermaid

21,492 posts

171 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
DJRC said:
I'm in awe of Ginger Loon, I really am.

I love the way she butt fked everyone, screwed everyone over and come up with even more dosh in the bank and pukka job. Absolute legend smile And she pisses off Middle England!
You mean Murdoch really, without him she was toast.

Mermaid

21,492 posts

171 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
EskimoArapaho said:
Oh dear, someone's not very happy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdXZdcC_KiE

And he must know where the bodies are buried. And one of the YT comments is from a lawyer for victims of phone hacking, wanting more info.

Perhaps Murdoch should have spread some of his money a bit wider?
Hope he does not a walk into the woods by himself

DJRC

23,563 posts

236 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
Mermaid said:
DJRC said:
I'm in awe of Ginger Loon, I really am.

I love the way she butt fked everyone, screwed everyone over and come up with even more dosh in the bank and pukka job. Absolute legend smile And she pisses off Middle England!
You mean Murdoch really, without him she was toast.
The only thing that matters if she had no charges against her, banked a massive cheque and has now walked back into a high end job for more cash. How and why are irrelevant. The girl is a legend to pirates everywhere!

Derek Smith

45,654 posts

248 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
Mermaid said:
You mean Murdoch really, without him she was toast.
If what she said in her trial was true then at best it would appear she was rather inept as an editor. She shot her mouth of in Leveson so not only inept but unable to see political implications.

If what she said at her trial was not true . . .

Many might feel she was out of her depth, given that because of what happened under her watch, and newspaper closed. This does not look good on anyone's CV.

As you say, the person in control is hardly her. She is moved about, a pawn. Things happen to her, she is not mistress of all she surveys. What she was forced to reveal at her trial showed her in a rather poor light.

Murdoch is sticking two fingers up at MPs who also, like Brookes, suck up to him. One wonders, one hopes, this might come back to bite him. It certainly makes Cameron look a bit foolish.


DJRC

23,563 posts

236 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
It doesn't make CMD look foolish at all because it's barely made any impression on him. It hasn't touched his political capital one iota, why? Because frankly its happened during traditional domestic political "downtime" and there are much bigger stories with greater impacts currently going on.

Brooks coming back doesn't matter dick except to irritate all those who got their knickers in a fuss about her before.

Marty Funkhouser

5,426 posts

181 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
Just reward for insulating the Murdoch's. Good for her.

Chlamydia

1,082 posts

127 months

Friday 4th September 2015
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
If what she said in her trial was true then at best it would appear she was rather inept as an editor.
This is what I'm confused about - she was either as bent as a nine bob note or really, really crap at her job. Neither option would make her employable in my eyes.

Dr Jekyll

23,820 posts

261 months

Saturday 5th September 2015
quotequote all
Chlamydia said:
This is what I'm confused about - she was either as bent as a nine bob note or really, really crap at her job. Neither option would make her employable in my eyes.
But if she did know about the phone hacking, that would make her no different from a lot of other tabloid editors, it was common knowledge that they were all at it and only blew up after the allegation about NOW deleting voicemails which was rubbish anyway.

If she didn't know then that would be a blunder but wouldn't exactly make her crap at her job, her job was to edit the paper in such a way that it sold in huge quantities.

So it's more a question of being either as bent as any other editor or making a bad mistake at something which was a minor part of her job.

Someone I knew who worked for one of the Murdoch papers predicted long ago that she'd be back. In her words 'She's Starbuck to Murdoch's Commander Adama'.

Wills2

22,799 posts

175 months

Saturday 5th September 2015
quotequote all
Chlamydia said:
Derek Smith said:
If what she said in her trial was true then at best it would appear she was rather inept as an editor.
This is what I'm confused about - she was either as bent as a nine bob note or really, really crap at her job. Neither option would make her employable in my eyes.
And can you imagine someone like Murdoch employing a fool to run his newspapers? No me neither.



Derek Smith

45,654 posts

248 months

Saturday 5th September 2015
quotequote all
Wills2 said:
Chlamydia said:
Derek Smith said:
If what she said in her trial was true then at best it would appear she was rather inept as an editor.
This is what I'm confused about - she was either as bent as a nine bob note or really, really crap at her job. Neither option would make her employable in my eyes.
And can you imagine someone like Murdoch employing a fool to run his newspapers? No me neither.

He's a bloke. Can you imagine a bloke with lots of money having a crush on someone much younger than him? He's old. He's got no worries. All he has left is self indulgence. As the bible says: Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Rupert. Or something like that. A bit more apt that 'oh good and faithful servant, now give me the talents'. She knows where the skeletons are buried. He probably has to be nice to her.

Brookes at Leveson was inept. You didn't need any explanation as to why the brief next to her reacted the way he did. She said just what she should not say. It was a major error. I'm not in any way suggesting that a lawyer would brief her on what not to say, but why didn't someone mention to her that paying the police was a bade thing to admit?

What saved Murdoch is not Brookes but his lawyers.

The only thing Murdoch gets out of his papers, in this country anyway, is political influence. Nothing else matters to him. He's got every candidate to replace Cameron scrabbling for crumbs from his table. He doesn't really care for anything else.