Coulson & Brooks hacking trial starts today
Discussion
hunton69 said:
How can you compare like for like as years go by every thing moves forward.
We can't to any degree of accuracy. However, locking up people in a knee-jerk reaction and the suggestion is that we've gone soft. However, historically we are locking up more now than we did years ago in proportion to the general public.You suggest that everything moves forward and that is what many of those engaged in prison reform suggest that we should do. However, those who do not want to move forward hold us back in the response that's been used for years.
Just a year ago I read an article on how car crime has been defeated by better security only to find that there is a startling increase in thefts of and from cars due to more sophisticated methods used by criminals. That's the systems being used. Very few criminals are sophisticated.
So we should compare what goes on in other similar countries to what goes on over here and make judgments based on that.
Those who generally lock up a lower percentage of criminals tend to be generally more law abiding. Those who lock up more, that's the USA, have more crime.
One way of lowering a crime rate is to invest in crime prevention, as you have suggested, and part of this is to spend more money of policing. Both Germany and France spend more per capita than we do on policing. Further, the responsibilities of their police is largely more limited than ours, for various reasons, one of which is that the matter is less political than in this country.
When six degrees of separation goes bad. I've just found out that I can get to to Rebekah Brooks and Wendy Deng Murdoch in four steps via my MP and Blair. My MP doesn't seem to be to be that smart or I've only seen them in stonewalling and denial mode that's not very convincing and seems inconsistent with their projected public image and political policies so how smart are the others at that tier.
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 20th May 05:26
carinaman said:
When six degrees of separation goes bad. I've just found out that I can get to to Rebekah Brooks and Wendy Deng Murdoch in four steps via my MP and Blair. My MP doesn't seem to be to be that smart or I've only seen them in stonewalling and denial mode that's not very convincing and seems inconsistent with their projected public image and political policies so how smart are the others at that tier.
Well - if you actually know your mp, then for many you could get to most world leaders and their ancillaries.Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 20th May 05:26
It depends how you define the strength of each connection.
Out of interest, do you hold contempt for all holders of public office? I just pick up a running theme from your police posts.
I suspect a high proportion of crimes are committed by those who haven't been to prison yet and don't seriously expect to, so the overall crime rate is unlikely to tell us much about the effectiveness of prisons. Maybe measuring the re offending rate of former prisoners is more relevant.
Vaud said:
Out of interest, do you hold contempt for all holders of public office? I just pick up a running theme from your police posts.
I'm just amazed how my MP has acted when faced with the truth. If you're communicating with someone for 6 weeks before meeting them and you've alluded to a rather inconvenient fact, an elephant sized skeleton in the cupboard, and they don't even ask about it it raises doubts. They had the stuff mailed on their desk with 'received' stamped on it but didn't ask the question. With hindsight I wish I hadn't mentioned the skeleton as they'd have been none the wiser. It's almost like they'd decided before we met what path they were going to take.Not being inquisitive or curious about it seems inconsistent with the public face they present about being concerned about such issues. They're saying one thing and doing another. So what should I believe, the words of my MP or their actions? Giving my MP some credit they gave the opportunity for the Chief Constable to dig themselves into a crater. But again, was that their intention or an accident by giving the police the opportunity to spin a yarn?
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 21st May 13:22
prand said:
Muncher said:
The jury are now out...
Interesting that, the news outlets seemed to go a bit quiet over this for the past 2 weeks or so, wonder how the summing up from prosecution went.
) soon and maybe even more powerful than before....So the day after the jury went to consider their verdicts, many households around the country get a free copy of the Sun (something that has never happened before.)shoved through the door featuring interviews with all the five main party leaders.
Why, its almost as if NI are trying to suggest they still have politics in the UK in their back pocket and they are trying to flex their influential muscles. Some people who might have spent the last few months hearing, day in and day out, of the cosy relationship between NI, Brooks, the police, Coulson & all the parties might be led to believe that nothing would change if they put forward a guilty verdict. Indeed that life might be made difficult for them if they did.....
Still, what a fortunate coincidence...
Why, its almost as if NI are trying to suggest they still have politics in the UK in their back pocket and they are trying to flex their influential muscles. Some people who might have spent the last few months hearing, day in and day out, of the cosy relationship between NI, Brooks, the police, Coulson & all the parties might be led to believe that nothing would change if they put forward a guilty verdict. Indeed that life might be made difficult for them if they did.....
Still, what a fortunate coincidence...
Chatting to someone who took turns in sitting in the trial for the purposes of reporting it in the press.
Brookes will get off. The image she's created is one of the busy executive who separates business and social. She worked hard and cannot be expected to know what's happening on every level. She leaves that to underlings. On the bit that the person sat through he said she was quite impressive (although as he was an 'insider' to an extent, he said that it was rather difficult to believe for him). Coulson is toast.
Brookes will get off. The image she's created is one of the busy executive who separates business and social. She worked hard and cannot be expected to know what's happening on every level. She leaves that to underlings. On the bit that the person sat through he said she was quite impressive (although as he was an 'insider' to an extent, he said that it was rather difficult to believe for him). Coulson is toast.
The Hypno-Toad said:
So the day after the jury went to consider their verdicts, many households around the country get a free copy of the Sun (something that has never happened before.)shoved through the door featuring interviews with all the five main party leaders.
Why, its almost as if NI are trying to suggest they still have politics in the UK in their back pocket and they are trying to flex their influential muscles. Some people who might have spent the last few months hearing, day in and day out, of the cosy relationship between NI, Brooks, the police, Coulson & all the parties might be led to believe that nothing would change if they put forward a guilty verdict. Indeed that life might be made difficult for them if they did.....
Still, what a fortunate coincidence...
That may be a conspiracy theory too far, as not even Murdoch can arrange for the jury to go out just as a certain football related event kicks off in Brazil.Why, its almost as if NI are trying to suggest they still have politics in the UK in their back pocket and they are trying to flex their influential muscles. Some people who might have spent the last few months hearing, day in and day out, of the cosy relationship between NI, Brooks, the police, Coulson & all the parties might be led to believe that nothing would change if they put forward a guilty verdict. Indeed that life might be made difficult for them if they did.....
Still, what a fortunate coincidence...
Derek Smith said:
Chatting to someone who took turns in sitting in the trial for the purposes of reporting it in the press.
Brookes will get off. The image she's created is one of the busy executive who separates business and social. She worked hard and cannot be expected to know what's happening on every level. She leaves that to underlings. On the bit that the person sat through he said she was quite impressive (although as he was an 'insider' to an extent, he said that it was rather difficult to believe for him). Coulson is toast.
I have always had doubts about the prosecution being able to convince the jury that Brooks and Co were actually personally responsible for this disgraceful business. I agree with you Derek I think Brooks and others may well walk but I suspect that Coulson and others may be potted. I have no doubt that she was fully aware of this whole business and indeed responsible. Proving this in court has been difficult which is why such trials are rare.Brookes will get off. The image she's created is one of the busy executive who separates business and social. She worked hard and cannot be expected to know what's happening on every level. She leaves that to underlings. On the bit that the person sat through he said she was quite impressive (although as he was an 'insider' to an extent, he said that it was rather difficult to believe for him). Coulson is toast.
The Hypno-Toad said:
So the day after the jury went to consider their verdicts, many households around the country get a free copy of the Sun (something that has never happened before.)shoved through the door featuring interviews with all the five main party leaders.
I put all the copies of that that appeared in my block of flats straight in the recycling bin.Would like to think that the arrogant woman's career is in the same place (although ideally the landfill bin not the recycling one).
Steffan said:
I have always had doubts about the prosecution being able to convince the jury that Brooks and Co were actually personally responsible for this disgraceful business. I agree with you Derek I think Brooks and others may well walk but I suspect that Coulson and others may be potted. I have no doubt that she was fully aware of this whole business and indeed responsible. Proving this in court has been difficult which is why such trials are rare.
Even if any of them walk, the trust is gone.Mermaid said:
Even if any of them walk, the trust is gone.
She has the backing of Murdoch. Trust is not an issue.Murdoch is powerful. He pulls strings. We have some ambitious MP today saying something about the BBC that Murdoch has been pushing for for years. The implication is that if you follow what Murdoch demands he'll get the papers on your side, but only if he feels your side will win.
He's not come out one way or t'other in the Scottish independence debate despite being approached by Salmon on a daily basis and Cameron as well. Once it is clear which side will win, Murdoch will go in on that side and then claim consideration.
Brooks will come out of this will no damage if she is found NG despite everything that has been revealed in the case. This, of course, is life. Can't blame her, though. She's defending herself in court. The ones who are to blame are those MPs who continue to associate with those who have been tarnished by the corrupt actions.
But again, that's life. The rich and powerful get richer and more powerful and there are those who don't care what they do as long as they get promoted/what they want.
EskimoArapaho said:
What is most bizarre/worrying is the politicians in the freebie Sun newspaper photos. Murdoch is tainted, and yet the gurning smarmy leaders were somehow happy to pretend they read The Sun. Without any discernible political benefit to them...
Politicians - yes.
Leaders - not so sure.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff