Coulson & Brooks hacking trial starts today
Discussion
pcvdriver said:
Because if they added the word/town S
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. 
O/T - I like it as it reminds me everytime I see it that no matter how 'bright' computers are and become the Mk1 Human Brain will always be more rounded.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. Charlie Brooks sounds like a right character based on his evidence.
It seems like there was actually no relevant evidence about Rebekah Brooks and phone hacking on the computers that Charlie Brooks arranged to have hidden and were found by a cleaner. But Charlie Brooks has admitted to hiding them.
So is it Perverting the Course of Justice to hide something that's not relevant, just to avoid the inconvenience of the police seizing it ? Or does there actually have to be something material to the case involved for it to count as PCOJ ? I suppose that's what the jury will have to decide.
At any rate, it seems like the prosecution would have a much stronger case if there had actually been anything relevant found on the computers.
Not really on topic but:
when the CID in the City of London was riddled with corruption, some officers fed the press with information on the enquiry into the Express payroll job in 1976. The suggestion was that information that would have been carefully 'lost' by those in pay of the robbers was given to the press as a means of 'insurance' that it was included.
Just to say that I have no idea how many were involved, what percentage of detectives were taking a bung and that when the Commander of the CoL police was called, on tape, by a really nasty chap involved in organised crime, "the biggest unhung villain" I totally believe, as mentioned later, that the chap did not realise what he was saying as he was drunk. Anyway:
One of the senior officers in the enquiry called all those on the major incident team and others doing bits and pieces into the hall and 'told them off' saying that if he ever discovered who was informing the press they would be in serious trouble. This could be taken one of two way: 1/ discipline or, 2/ not discipline, the former being much more preferable.
I was dragged in for the bking, although all I was doing was writing up a crime in the CID general office.
I then left the nick, walked down to Blackfriars railway station to give a crime number to the prop of a shop nearby, and then wandered along Fleet Street, say a journey of some 45 minutes - a cup of tea was involved. In the street I was confronted by placards for the Evening News read: Senior Officer warns enquiry team.
That was cool, and also risky. The corrupt ones didn't mess about.
when the CID in the City of London was riddled with corruption, some officers fed the press with information on the enquiry into the Express payroll job in 1976. The suggestion was that information that would have been carefully 'lost' by those in pay of the robbers was given to the press as a means of 'insurance' that it was included.
Just to say that I have no idea how many were involved, what percentage of detectives were taking a bung and that when the Commander of the CoL police was called, on tape, by a really nasty chap involved in organised crime, "the biggest unhung villain" I totally believe, as mentioned later, that the chap did not realise what he was saying as he was drunk. Anyway:
One of the senior officers in the enquiry called all those on the major incident team and others doing bits and pieces into the hall and 'told them off' saying that if he ever discovered who was informing the press they would be in serious trouble. This could be taken one of two way: 1/ discipline or, 2/ not discipline, the former being much more preferable.
I was dragged in for the b
king, although all I was doing was writing up a crime in the CID general office.I then left the nick, walked down to Blackfriars railway station to give a crime number to the prop of a shop nearby, and then wandered along Fleet Street, say a journey of some 45 minutes - a cup of tea was involved. In the street I was confronted by placards for the Evening News read: Senior Officer warns enquiry team.
That was cool, and also risky. The corrupt ones didn't mess about.
Derek Smith said:
Not really on topic but:
when the CID in the City of London was riddled with corruption, some officers fed the press with information on the enquiry into the Express payroll job in 1976. The suggestion was that information that would have been carefully 'lost' by those in pay of the robbers was given to the press as a means of 'insurance' that it was included.
Just to say that I have no idea how many were involved, what percentage of detectives were taking a bung and that when the Commander of the CoL police was called, on tape, by a really nasty chap involved in organised crime, "the biggest unhung villain" I totally believe, as mentioned later, that the chap did not realise what he was saying as he was drunk. Anyway:
One of the senior officers in the enquiry called all those on the major incident team and others doing bits and pieces into the hall and 'told them off' saying that if he ever discovered who was informing the press they would be in serious trouble. This could be taken one of two way: 1/ discipline or, 2/ not discipline, the former being much more preferable.
I was dragged in for the bking, although all I was doing was writing up a crime in the CID general office.
I then left the nick, walked down to Blackfriars railway station to give a crime number to the prop of a shop nearby, and then wandered along Fleet Street, say a journey of some 45 minutes - a cup of tea was involved. In the street I was confronted by placards for the Evening News read: Senior Officer warns enquiry team.
That was cool, and also risky. The corrupt ones didn't mess about.
Very good when the CID in the City of London was riddled with corruption, some officers fed the press with information on the enquiry into the Express payroll job in 1976. The suggestion was that information that would have been carefully 'lost' by those in pay of the robbers was given to the press as a means of 'insurance' that it was included.
Just to say that I have no idea how many were involved, what percentage of detectives were taking a bung and that when the Commander of the CoL police was called, on tape, by a really nasty chap involved in organised crime, "the biggest unhung villain" I totally believe, as mentioned later, that the chap did not realise what he was saying as he was drunk. Anyway:
One of the senior officers in the enquiry called all those on the major incident team and others doing bits and pieces into the hall and 'told them off' saying that if he ever discovered who was informing the press they would be in serious trouble. This could be taken one of two way: 1/ discipline or, 2/ not discipline, the former being much more preferable.
I was dragged in for the b
king, although all I was doing was writing up a crime in the CID general office.I then left the nick, walked down to Blackfriars railway station to give a crime number to the prop of a shop nearby, and then wandered along Fleet Street, say a journey of some 45 minutes - a cup of tea was involved. In the street I was confronted by placards for the Evening News read: Senior Officer warns enquiry team.
That was cool, and also risky. The corrupt ones didn't mess about.
, just out of interest what was option 2.. joe_90 said:
Very good , just out of interest what was option 2..
The problem that many of the straight officers had was whom they could trust. Everyone knew the high profile bent ones but there were many 'sleepers'., just out of interest what was option 2.. One chap witnessed half a dozen police officers breaking into Austin Reeds in Fenchurch Street. When he refused to receive any of the clothes, he was warned that he should be careful, given that he had a family. He wanted to put them away but had not idea whom he could go to. He was new to the force. In the end he went to our female superintendent, top class woman. It meant that he had to run away to the Isle of Wight so that anyone who did attack him or his family would have the problem of getting off the island. And don't forget that many of the criminals were in league with the corrupt officers.
In many ways it suited the bent ones. It showed that if you did make a stand you had to run away.
So option 2 was, in effect, keep your head down and just be honest. I wouldn't criticise any officer who decided not to risk the welfare of his/her family.
What with Max Clifford, Stuart Hall back in court, talk of Freddie Starr etc, I'd completely forgotten this was going on!
You only need a world crisis like Ukraine on the news and the upocoming Euro elections, it doesn't take much for this to not even get a mention on the news any more either ... I remember when it started them saying the trial would last until May and you think at the time: "How are they going to drag it out til then etc?" But here we are ...
So what do we all reckon on the verdicts?
You only need a world crisis like Ukraine on the news and the upocoming Euro elections, it doesn't take much for this to not even get a mention on the news any more either ... I remember when it started them saying the trial would last until May and you think at the time: "How are they going to drag it out til then etc?" But here we are ...
So what do we all reckon on the verdicts?
I have nary a clue as I haven't followed the evidence. Some here have said that the prosecution failed to nail the connection between the badness and the defendants, and that the defence teams have done a good filibuster and confuse job. Against that, there is the possibility that the jury will just hate the defendants and the style of journalism that they represent so much that they will say screw the evidence and convict anyway.
Breadvan72 said:
I have nary a clue as I haven't followed the evidence. Some here have said that the prosecution failed to nail the connection between the badness and the defendants, and that the defence teams have done a good filibuster and confuse job. Against that, there is the possibility that the jury will just hate the defendants and the style of journalism that they represent so much that they will say screw the evidence and convict anyway.
And thats a problem?Breadvan72 said:
I have nary a clue as I haven't followed the evidence. Some here have said that the prosecution failed to nail the connection between the badness and the defendants, and that the defence teams have done a good filibuster and confuse job. Against that, there is the possibility that the jury will just hate the defendants and the style of journalism that they represent so much that they will say screw the evidence and convict anyway.
Both are going to jail, Brooks two years, Coulson 4-5 years - Guilty, but not on all charges. onyx39 said:
Breadvan72 said:
I have nary a clue as I haven't followed the evidence. Some here have said that the prosecution failed to nail the connection between the badness and the defendants, and that the defence teams have done a good filibuster and confuse job. Against that, there is the possibility that the jury will just hate the defendants and the style of journalism that they represent so much that they will say screw the evidence and convict anyway.
And thats a problem?Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 8th May 10:20
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff