Coulson & Brooks hacking trial starts today
Discussion
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.
I think Carter will not be found guilty of the offence she's charged with.
The evidence of alleged wrongdoing is all circumstantial as they don't have any proof that there was anything else in the boxes. There's really nothing more than "Your activities looked suspicious" - which I bet is enough for reasonable doubt among enough of the jury.
The evidence of alleged wrongdoing is all circumstantial as they don't have any proof that there was anything else in the boxes. There's really nothing more than "Your activities looked suspicious" - which I bet is enough for reasonable doubt among enough of the jury.
outnumbered said:
I think Carter will not be found guilty of the offence she's charged with.
The evidence of alleged wrongdoing is all circumstantial as they don't have any proof that there was anything else in the boxes. There's really nothing more than "Your activities looked suspicious" - which I bet is enough for reasonable doubt among enough of the jury.
are you reading two threads at once?The evidence of alleged wrongdoing is all circumstantial as they don't have any proof that there was anything else in the boxes. There's really nothing more than "Your activities looked suspicious" - which I bet is enough for reasonable doubt among enough of the jury.
onyx39 said:
are you reading two threads at once?
Cheryl Carter:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26751086
For some reason it seems your post will have me humming Kevin Carter by the Manic Street Preachers rather than the Roy Budd theme tune to a film that will hopefully be celebrated on Great British films stamps later this year.
carinaman said:
onyx39 said:
are you reading two threads at once?
Cheryl Carter:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26751086
For some reason it seems your post will have me humming Kevin Carter by the Manic Street Preachers rather than the Roy Budd theme tune to a film that will hopefully be celebrated on Great British films stamps later this year.
outnumbered said:
I think Carter will not be found guilty of the offence she's charged with.
The evidence of alleged wrongdoing is all circumstantial as they don't have any proof that there was anything else in the boxes. There's really nothing more than "Your activities looked suspicious" - which I bet is enough for reasonable doubt among enough of the jury.
There seems to be a belief that circumstantial is somehow bad evidence. Far from it, it is very good, and mainly unarguable. You can, and many have, be convicted on circumstantial evidence only. Just because there is no forensic evidence nor eyewitness evidence does not mean the case if poor.The evidence of alleged wrongdoing is all circumstantial as they don't have any proof that there was anything else in the boxes. There's really nothing more than "Your activities looked suspicious" - which I bet is enough for reasonable doubt among enough of the jury.
Circumstances are often the clincher and the other stuff just backs it up.
spitsfire said:
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"
Regarding being woken by the police to help with their enquiries I think being subject to 'Shock and awe' tactics can help swing things. I think more than a few could be bowled over by such approaches.
Shame the police sometimes can't be more fair over it. I thought it was up to those making the allegations to prove them? If they're wrong and you stand your ground they can runaway and hide under rocks. It can then be a long drawn out process getting closure as they can play for time and do their well versed 'nothing to see here' routine.
I was reading about Chris Jefferies lastnight, and the TV drama may be the next piece of TV I make a concerted effort to sit down and watch:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/chri...
Thanks for the Biblical quote. I'm not sure God reckoned on the 2002 Police Reform Act though.
I found Derek Smith's point about circumstantial evidence useful.
Regarding the issue of moral repugnance, the press haven't done that much different from the way the police snooped on the Lawrences, Duwayne Brooks and the relatives of those that died at Hillsborough. It's quite amusing looking at that list of meetings between the Met and News International and realising that they share the same MO. It was a chap working for The Mirror that got the Levi Bellfield collar for killing Milly Dowler. It's difficult to tell the difference between the police and the press when they do each others jobs. And some say the police have lost their way?
I acted on a civil case for a high profile bloke (I shall not name him) who was arrested on some duff charges. Not only was he doorstepped by the police with full media attendance, but his interviews at the police station were leaked to the media by someone on the police team. The charges were malicious, and were dropped, but this bloke's reputation was fair game to be trashed by a combined police and media show. It so happens that this chap was not and is not a nice or popular guy, but even so he did not deserve what happened.
Breadvan72 said:
It so happens that this chap was not and is not a nice or popular guy, but even so he did not deserve what happened.
Thanks. And thanks again for your help and that of Derek Smith in the summer about whether something was an offence or not. To that I added the points made by 10_Pence_Short this week that mentioned CPS and thresholds. When you've been on the receiving end of something like that the illusion is shattered. It's like coming home and finding your spouse in bed with your best mate. Edited by carinaman on Thursday 27th March 15:29
Breadvan72 said:
It so happens that this chap was not and is not a nice or popular guy, but even so he did not deserve what happened.
Beware of the judgement of deserve. I was told years ago that the police's job in an inquiry was to put a case to the court. Anything else is the route to madness.Deserve is a dangerous course of thought. Next you'll start thinking that you should, somehow, influence rather than just do your job, and that way lies real problems.
We nicked a bloke who had been sexually assaulting his nephew, including making him perform humiliating acts, over a period of years so, no doubt buggering him for life as well. The DS in charge of the case put his arm around the bloke and walked him into the CID office and got one of us uniform lads to make the pair of them a cup of tea. There was a cough within minutes, for reasons which any investigating officer will tell you.
I wondered at the time what I would have done had the bloke been assaulted by one of the arresting officers, perhaps just a slap or two, maybe too tight cuffs, possibly a more serious assault, like a push down the stairs. Would I have said what I'd seen. After all, the blokes on my unit were, in the main, family men, me included. I thought I knew the answer at the time, and probably did.
Now, I'm not so sure. Deserve, now I'm out of the Job, is something I'm allowed to indulge in. And, of course, he deserved more than the court gave him, or could give him.
There was a case at the CCC where a serial offender got off with a defence that the QC specialised in, a sort of Mr. Loophole for the sexually criminal. The father of the child he'd assaulted punched the offender in the face outside the court, in Old Bailey, smashing his front teeth. I arrested the bloke but he was taken from me by two senior PCs, the norm in those days so didn't think much about it. The father was taken to the judge who found him guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to one day or a pound. As the courts had risen for the day, his imprisonment would have been potential rather than real.
The judge took a decision as to deserve.
I do find I have a certain sympathy with those who indulge their desire for justice.
spitsfire said:
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.
Derek Smith said:
Breadvan72 said:
It so happens that this chap was not and is not a nice or popular guy, but even so he did not deserve what happened.
Beware of the judgement of deserve. I was told years ago that the police's job in an inquiry was to put a case to the court. Anything else is the route to madness.Deserve is a dangerous course of thought. Next you'll start thinking that you should, somehow, influence rather than just do your job, and that way lies real problems.
We nicked a bloke who had been sexually assaulting his nephew, including making him perform humiliating acts, over a period of years so, no doubt buggering him for life as well. The DS in charge of the case put his arm around the bloke and walked him into the CID office and got one of us uniform lads to make the pair of them a cup of tea. There was a cough within minutes, for reasons which any investigating officer will tell you.
I wondered at the time what I would have done had the bloke been assaulted by one of the arresting officers, perhaps just a slap or two, maybe too tight cuffs, possibly a more serious assault, like a push down the stairs. Would I have said what I'd seen. After all, the blokes on my unit were, in the main, family men, me included. I thought I knew the answer at the time, and probably did.
Now, I'm not so sure. Deserve, now I'm out of the Job, is something I'm allowed to indulge in. And, of course, he deserved more than the court gave him, or could give him.
There was a case at the CCC where a serial offender got off with a defence that the QC specialised in, a sort of Mr. Loophole for the sexually criminal. The father of the child he'd assaulted punched the offender in the face outside the court, in Old Bailey, smashing his front teeth. I arrested the bloke but he was taken from me by two senior PCs, the norm in those days so didn't think much about it. The father was taken to the judge who found him guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to one day or a pound. As the courts had risen for the day, his imprisonment would have been potential rather than real.
The judge took a decision as to deserve.
I do find I have a certain sympathy with those who indulge their desire for justice.
carinaman said:
Thanks for the Biblical quote. I'm not sure God reckoned on the 2002 Police Reform Act though.
I do love a line or two from the bible, perhaps growing up watching The Rev. I. M. Jolly makes me warm to the idea of a dour Ricky Fulton delivering that line from the bench at the Old Bailey.....carinaman said:
I found Derek Smith's point about circumstantial evidence useful
Derek's hit the nail on the head here: These people are not idiots. Quite the opposite. They're unlikely to leave a 'smoking gun' behind; have the police found the handsets used to hack VMs? Forget the crap you saw on CSI S
horpe - circumstantial evidence is quite possibly the best evidence available, and it can be very persuasive.In a similar vein, I'm sure that a forensic examination and comparison of the IMEI numbers on all the phones used to hack, the phones used on NI corporate accounts, and the phones used by the rozzers would produce some interesting 'coincidences'. I've done some work with telecoms and network engineers, and the data they can pull out and cross-reference is f
king scary.Edited by spitsfire on Friday 28th March 10:51
Steffan said:
Spitfire is precisely correct in suggesting that it was the influence on the jury that I believe the Millid Dowler disgrace will have. Juries ime are influenced by such appalling behaviour and much more unforgiving with criminal miscreants. Whether this jury will does remain to be seen but I think that they may well be influenced by that particular event.
So what is the relevance of 'what the family must have thought when the phone appeared to be in use after Millie Dowler had died'?spitsfire said:
What's wrong with the PH filters? They've banned an entire town....
I can't even post my favourite joke (although I'm sure you can work it out): If Typhoo put the 'T' in 'Britain', who put the in Shorpe?
Because if they added the word/town SI can't even post my favourite joke (although I'm sure you can work it out): If Typhoo put the 'T' in 'Britain', who put the
in Shorpe?horpe to the list of allowable words/phrases etc etc - we'd get loads of people on here calling each other Shorpes just to get the word past the censors. 
Breadvan72 said:
Wow, Derek, you have spectacularly and comprehensively missed my point. Please re read the post that you commented on. It doesn't say what you appear to think it says. A clue: I wasn't taking about being the bloke being arrested, I was taking about inappropiate co operation between police and media.
I understood what you meant right enough. As for the cooperation between the media and the police, this has gone on for years and is a positive move. One journo from the Argos had a pass to the nick in my day after criticisms from the general public (and local briefs) about secrecy. He was even allowed allowed in the cells.
From a selfish point of view, it tends to negate accusations of beatings, intimidation and corrupt practices. We had lay visitors as well but then there's no pressure on them to publicise the truth.
Police should be open. I'm all for the press going on all operations.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff