Rebecca Brooks receives 10.8 Million payoff. Really!!

[Steffan]

It seems to me that there are clearly two laws operating on the UK today. One for the have's one for the have nots. See

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20705535

How a major UK company can award such a sum to an employee accused of serious criminal acts in the employment of that company, is beyond me. If ever there was a good example of crime paying in the UK this must surely be the one.

I am interested to see if others agree.

[Steffan]

Eric Mc said:

Because she's worth it - as her class always feel they are.

And I am referring to "The Entitled Class" - which is nothing to do with aristocracy or the Upper Class. This is a new elite - who live by a whole set of different rules and mores to you and I.

I am very pleased that you include me in your different rules set!!

Interesting comments from several Ph'ers in the subject. I would suggest that am immediate high court judicial review on the legality of that decision by the Directors and the flagrant disregard for rewarding criminality would very possibly succeed.

Sadly none of the politicians in power, including DC who is, as we know a serious friend of and frequent correspondent with Rebecca Brooks, have the bottle for it. Or the judgement. Not to mention the awful Andy Coulson the other bosom pal of DC. You can judge a man by his friends.

If she is found guilty, as I believe she will be, then the remuneration committee at News International should face prosecution. Naturally given our supine politicians they will not.

[Steffan]

marcosgt said:

Steffan said:

Sadly none of the politicians in power, including DC who is, as we know a serious friend of and frequent correspondent with Rebecca Brooks, have the bottle for it. Or the judgement.

Euphemism of the week winner, right there!

M.

That was the plan.

[Steffan]

Jasandjules said:

davepoth said:

The how is easy - they sent a cheque. The why is more interesting. Her taking the fall for News International seems to be worth rather a lot...

It's almost as if someone else should have been jailed as well but she has shut up and doing the time instead and being paid for it. But that can't be right can it?!!?

That is precisely my point. Criminality cannot legally be rewarded. IMO.

[Steffan]

coyft said:

Steffan said:

I would suggest that am immediate high court judicial review on the legality of that decision by the Directors and the flagrant disregard for rewarding criminality would very possibly succeed.

I think you're getting your knickers in a twist. Firstly how can you bring an immediate action when she hasn't been convicted of anything?

Secondly how do you know that there isn't a claw back clause if she is found guilty?

IMO it comes down to inappropriate action by those responsible. The staff and directors who have agreed this. If the money is paid prior to the trial getting any back what then?

PLC Directors have a substantial duty of care. Which sadly, has been utterly disregarded in UK big business for some time. I believe this offer comfortably exceeds any reasonable assessment of the discharge of that duty. I am sickened by the entire appalling mess at News International.

Given the very serious charges have been laid against Rebecca Brooks I believe that such an offer is simply an appalling and very probably criminal act in itself. No one can be above law.

[Steffan]

coyft said:

Steffan said:

coyft said:

Steffan said:

I would suggest that am immediate high court judicial review on the legality of that decision by the Directors and the flagrant disregard for rewarding criminality would very possibly succeed.

I think you're getting your knickers in a twist. Firstly how can you bring an immediate action when she hasn't been convicted of anything?

Secondly how do you know that there isn't a claw back clause if she is found guilty?

IMO it comes down to inappropriate action by those responsible. The staff and directors who have agreed this. If the money is paid prior to the trial getting any back what then?

PLC Directors have a substantial duty of care. Which sadly, has been utterly disregarded in UK big business for some time. I believe this offer comfortably exceeds any reasonable assessment of the discharge of that duty. I am sickened by the entire appalling mess at News International.

Given the very serious charges have been laid against Rebecca Brooks I believe that such an offer is simply an appalling and very probably criminal act in itself. No one can be above law.

You are being hysterical. She isn't above the law, she is currently being tried in a court of law. If she's cleared of all criminal charges she'll keep the money, if she's convicted I have no doubt there will be a claw back clause.

You appear to be missing my point.

Which is that no such award should be agreed by any PLC director when the individual concerned has already been charged with a number of conspiracy offences within the organisation in which the offences occurred. PLC Directors should never act in this manner.

This award should never have been made. It is a slap in the face for the parents of Millie Dowler and every other individual damaged by the affair and the criminality involved. The woman has been charged with a number of offences all within News International. This is simply wrong and IMO unlawful.

Others have suggested that is smacks of a cover up. That is an entirely reasonable view IMO and demonstrates why this is fundamentally wrong.

[Steffan]

johnfm said:

Steffan said:

coyft said:

Steffan said:

I would suggest that am immediate high court judicial review on the legality of that decision by the Directors and the flagrant disregard for rewarding criminality would very possibly succeed.

I think you're getting your knickers in a twist. Firstly how can you bring an immediate action when she hasn't been convicted of anything?

Secondly how do you know that there isn't a claw back clause if she is found guilty?

IMO it comes down to inappropriate action by those responsible. The staff and directors who have agreed this. If the money is paid prior to the trial getting any back what then?

PLC Directors have a substantial duty of care. Which sadly, has been utterly disregarded in UK big business for some time. I believe this offer comfortably exceeds any reasonable assessment of the discharge of that duty. I am sickened by the entire appalling mess at News International.

Given the very serious charges have been laid against Rebecca Brooks I believe that such an offer is simply an appalling and very probably criminal act in itself. No one can be above law.

Are you for real?

Judicial review? For a contractual agreement between a company and an individual?

Compromise agreement a crime?

Your hysteria seems to know no bounds.

That is my view. I do not regard the 10.5 million settlement as either fair or reasonable or indeed lawful. Presumably you do.

There is a steadily increasing trend for the likes of Ms Brooks to be above the law. I do not accept that trend. That is in effect what has transpired here. I do not accept this is a reasonable outcome.

Do you really think that it is reasonable for an award of this size to be agreed whilst serious criminal charges remain unanswered? This is a lottery win, not a reasonable settlement. It us an odious affair.

[Steffan]

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.

[Steffan]

Derek Smith said:

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.

Indeed.

I like neither the approach of the Murdochs to business, nor the disgraceful criminality that has gone on under their stewardship, nor the utterly reprehensible phone tapping that was clearly rampant under the Murdoch operation. There is in fact nothing I like in the Murdoch News empire and a great deal that I detest, therin.

Derek is absolutely correct in his assessement that Brooks is untouchable within that business because of the need of the Murdoch's to ensure protection remains for them personally. The Murdochs enjoy wealth beyond the wildest dreams of most
Individuals and it is a fact that much of this wealth has been achieved under Rupert Murdoch. Dreadful man but a considerable businessman, probably the greatest Newspaper Tycoon ever.

I cannot see any effective action against the Murdochs over the phone tapping disgrace, or indeed, any effective action against the Murdochs. In reality such individuals are above the law. My father, a distinctly radical left wing Cleric in the Church of England, many years ago, frequently preached to congregations never to engage in petty crime because such crime was invariably punished.

He suggested that, rather than stealing the sheep, from the land, it would be much less risky and far more profitable to steal the land from under the sheep. Furthermore he suggested, honours and fame tended to accrue to major criminals because the crimes they committed were simply too big for the authorities to actually seek to prevent. Altogether much safer. Sadly his thoughts are clearly still entirely correct.

It would seem to me that with the exception of Andy Coulson and a few other slime balls none of the serious criminals in this matter will ever be charged. The scale of the crime is simply beyond the CPS. As the paper thin cases against several minor players over the last few months have failed steadily, it has become obvious that the CPS is wholly ineffective against such major organised crime. No surprise there I think!

[Steffan]

Dr Jekyll said:

Steffan said:

It would seem to me that with the exception of Andy Coulson and a few other slime balls none of the serious criminals in this matter will ever be charged. The scale of the crime is simply beyond the CPS. As the paper thin cases against several minor players over the last few months have failed steadily, it has become obvious that the CPS is wholly ineffective against such major organised crime. No surprise there I think!

Major organised crime? A bit OTT surely for eavesdropping on phone messages.

Not the first time I have been accused if being OTT.

You may well be right. However given the sheer scale of the phone hacking, the number of individuals involved, the number of individuals who were abused by this process and the appalling Millie Dowler case I think that suggests major organised crime. I would suggest the entire Newspaper industry has sought to keep the level of complaints as low as possible and to avoid building up serious concern amongst the general pubic. It is pretty obvious that others like the Mirror group were at it.

That strikes me as serious, organised carefully stage managed crime. None of the major players will be held responsible. Thoroughly bad news.