Coulson & Brooks hacking trial starts today
Discussion
Steffan said:
A most informative post. On a similar note, having been personally involved in umpteen (many hundreds) of amalgamations, reconstructions and liquidations over 40 odd years (very odd!)I can only agree. The Justice system cannot determine reactions to business failures and events and the consequences thereof with sufficient accuracy to actually offer a realistic prospect of success in most actions.
Many of the pre packaged major collapses in retail businesses where within hours or at the most a few days the entire business is effectively shorn of tens of millions in debt and free to operate again legally. I do not like such arrangements because the Creditors IMO are very badly done to. But the discussions between the various parties are outside the realm of investigation. I cannot see any of the legal advice or discussions within this mess being investigated of considered in any way. The law cannot be involved within such privileged frameworks.
Often in the past when the big 4 had been appointed as consultants to review a fledging business and soon after the same firm is appointed to administer/liquidate.Many of the pre packaged major collapses in retail businesses where within hours or at the most a few days the entire business is effectively shorn of tens of millions in debt and free to operate again legally. I do not like such arrangements because the Creditors IMO are very badly done to. But the discussions between the various parties are outside the realm of investigation. I cannot see any of the legal advice or discussions within this mess being investigated of considered in any way. The law cannot be involved within such privileged frameworks.
Mermaid said:
Steffan said:
A most informative post. On a similar note, having been personally involved in umpteen (many hundreds) of amalgamations, reconstructions and liquidations over 40 odd years (very odd!)I can only agree. The Justice system cannot determine reactions to business failures and events and the consequences thereof with sufficient accuracy to actually offer a realistic prospect of success in most actions.
Many of the pre packaged major collapses in retail businesses where within hours or at the most a few days the entire business is effectively shorn of tens of millions in debt and free to operate again legally. I do not like such arrangements because the Creditors IMO are very badly done to. But the discussions between the various parties are outside the realm of investigation. I cannot see any of the legal advice or discussions within this mess being investigated of considered in any way. The law cannot be involved within such privileged frameworks.
Often in the past when the big 4 had been appointed as consultants to review a fledging business and soon after the same firm is appointed to administer/liquidate.Many of the pre packaged major collapses in retail businesses where within hours or at the most a few days the entire business is effectively shorn of tens of millions in debt and free to operate again legally. I do not like such arrangements because the Creditors IMO are very badly done to. But the discussions between the various parties are outside the realm of investigation. I cannot see any of the legal advice or discussions within this mess being investigated of considered in any way. The law cannot be involved within such privileged frameworks.
Back to the OP's matter on here there may be convictions in this affair but I personally remain utterly unconvinced. I think the prosecution thus far has been tawdry and toothless. At best, weak and ineffective.
From The Drum coverage:
Judge Saunders asked the witness that while he understood she could not ask who the source was could she not ask the general category, Brooks said she trusted the journalist and never asked. "You trusted Clive Goodman and look what happened there," the judge replied, which led to objections from both Goodman and Brooks' barristers.
This isn't the first remark the judge has made that seems to be, let's say, unsympathetic, towards this defendant !
Judge Saunders asked the witness that while he understood she could not ask who the source was could she not ask the general category, Brooks said she trusted the journalist and never asked. "You trusted Clive Goodman and look what happened there," the judge replied, which led to objections from both Goodman and Brooks' barristers.
This isn't the first remark the judge has made that seems to be, let's say, unsympathetic, towards this defendant !
BBC News Website 26 March 2014 said:
She said the boxes had been labelled as Rebekah Brooks's notebooks because they contained just one notebook that Mrs Brooks had given her when she joined her staff in 1995, and one telephone "record book" labelled with the year 2007.
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26751086
carinaman said:
Do the defence believe that the jury are complete idiots?FurtiveFreddy said:
rohrl said:
Do the defence believe that the jury are complete idiots?
It's possible they are, but we can only hope the majority of them are not.
h hangs?
carinaman said:
BBC News Website 26 March 2014 said:
She said the boxes had been labelled as Rebekah Brooks's notebooks because they contained just one notebook that Mrs Brooks had given her when she joined her staff in 1995, and one telephone "record book" labelled with the year 2007.
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26751086Well, we've all done it. The times I've gone to the biscuit barrel, clearly marked ''biscuits'', only to find one solitary custard cream in the bottom and the rest of it full of carrots......
BBC News said:
"Mr Edis, I got dragged out of my bed at 7. I got watched while I went to the toilet, watched while I got dressed," Mrs Carter said.
"I was told I would be handcuffed and put in a cell for four or five hours. I was cold. I was scared.
"Yes, I did get things wrong. I tried my very best."
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26751086"I was told I would be handcuffed and put in a cell for four or five hours. I was cold. I was scared.
"Yes, I did get things wrong. I tried my very best."
I'm amazed that a bunch of hacks who earned a crust from whipping up lynch mobs suddenly decide that dawn raids by the police, searches, and being cuffed are terrible impositions; a rather late-in-the-day discovery that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
They didn't realise this when they did it to Chris Jeffries, or when they had to apologise to him, or when they had to pay him damages, but they do now?
As the Good Book says "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap"
spitsfire said:
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26751086
I'm amazed that a bunch of hacks who earned a crust from whipping up lynch mobs suddenly decide that dawn raids by the police, searches, and being cuffed are terrible impositions; a rather late-in-the-day discovery that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
They didn't realise this when they did it to Chris Jeffries, or when they had to apologise to him, or when they had to pay him damages, but they do now?
As the Good Book says "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap"
7am is not early for a raid. They probably chose it for light traffic. Early raids are around 4am. My lad is a journalist and he and others of his ilk were asked to accompany the Mets on a series of coordinated raids. Another hack said that he agreed to go on the raid when he saw the time he had to turn up: 3.30. He thought that was the afternoon. My lad reckoned that the bloke, a rather experienced chap, didn't know there was a 3.30 in the morning.I'm amazed that a bunch of hacks who earned a crust from whipping up lynch mobs suddenly decide that dawn raids by the police, searches, and being cuffed are terrible impositions; a rather late-in-the-day discovery that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
They didn't realise this when they did it to Chris Jeffries, or when they had to apologise to him, or when they had to pay him damages, but they do now?
As the Good Book says "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap"
Steffan said:
If there is one incident in this matter which will I think pot the lot it is the Millie Dowler case. Absolutely appalling behaviour with the full knowledge of what the family must have thought when the phone appeared to be in use after Millie Dowler had died. We will have to wait and see.
It was the deletion of the voicemail messages that misled the family, and there is no evidence that Brooks et al (or any other journalist) had anything to do with that.Dr Jekyll said:
Steffan said:
If there is one incident in this matter which will I think pot the lot it is the Millie Dowler case. Absolutely appalling behaviour with the full knowledge of what the family must have thought when the phone appeared to be in use after Millie Dowler had died. We will have to wait and see.
It was the deletion of the voicemail messages that misled the family, and there is no evidence that Brooks et al (or any other journalist) had anything to do with that.spitsfire said:
from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26751086
I'm amazed that a bunch of hacks who earned a crust from whipping up lynch mobs suddenly decide that dawn raids by the police, searches, and being cuffed are terrible impositions; a rather late-in-the-day discovery that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
They didn't realise this when they did it to Chris Jeffries, or when they had to apologise to him, or when they had to pay him damages, but they do now?
As the Good Book says "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap"
7am - a dawn raid? WTF?!!! With descriptive powers like those, no wonder her evidence is seen as a little shaky. What time in the morning does she normally get up for work if 7am is deemed by her to be sparrow's fart?...... I know, I'll rock up for work at 11 am tomorrow and see if anyone's noticed my tardiness.I'm amazed that a bunch of hacks who earned a crust from whipping up lynch mobs suddenly decide that dawn raids by the police, searches, and being cuffed are terrible impositions; a rather late-in-the-day discovery that people should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
They didn't realise this when they did it to Chris Jeffries, or when they had to apologise to him, or when they had to pay him damages, but they do now?
As the Good Book says "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap"
Derek Smith said:
7am is not early for a raid. They probably chose it for light traffic. Early raids are around 4am. My lad is a journalist and he and others of his ilk were asked to accompany the Mets on a series of coordinated raids. Another hack said that he agreed to go on the raid when he saw the time he had to turn up: 3.30. He thought that was the afternoon. My lad reckoned that the bloke, a rather experienced chap, didn't know there was a 3.30 in the morning.
Quite. But don't you think traffic would have been lighter at 4am though? It is my thinking that they were being charitable with a 7 o'clock knock!!!...... If it had been some wee scrotes getting a visit, their front doors would have been given a much earlier percussive tap. When I was doing shifts, 3:30 am was put the kettle on time upon arriving at work.10 Pence Short said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Steffan said:
If there is one incident in this matter which will I think pot the lot it is the Millie Dowler case. Absolutely appalling behaviour with the full knowledge of what the family must have thought when the phone appeared to be in use after Millie Dowler had died. We will have to wait and see.
It was the deletion of the voicemail messages that misled the family, and there is no evidence that Brooks et al (or any other journalist) had anything to do with that.I could be wrong, but I think Steffan's point was more that the jury might find it considerably easier to find them guilty because they are, however charitably you look at it, morally repugnant.
spitsfire said:
...the jury might find it considerably easier to find them guilty because they are, however charitably you look at it, morally repugnant.
And that was my point. Whether the jury find something morally acceptable is not the question they're being asked. They should put aside their personal feelings and deal with the facts.If found guilty the sentences may take into account the severity of the offending and the deterrent effect required.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff